ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 14th March 2013, 08:45 AM   #81
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,435
from aggle-rithm's blog:

Quote:
I think Levitin was on the wrong track here. “High” and “low” are not so much tied to spatial orientation as they are to weight. We know, either from instinct or common experience, that heavy things make low-pitched noises, while light things make high-pitched noises. Thus, use of the word “high” is a metaphor for “lightly pitched”, while “low” is really “heavily pitched”.

Another thing we learn from experience is that heavy things can escalate in pitch as they become more animated. Therefore, once we associate a grouping of low notes with “something heavy”, their ascent into higher registers tends to make us think “more energy” rather than “becoming lighter”. We see the grouping of notes (the melody or theme) as a constant entity, even though it is really no such thing. Constant things do not tend to change in mass, but they do get more or less animated.

It all depends on context, though. If a composer is able to convince the listener that the succession of notes suggests “something getting heavier” (a snowball rolling down a hill, perhaps?), then for it to maintain the same tempo over time means it is gaining energy, even though it is not becoming more animated. This explains the raw power of some of the pedal passages in the music of Bach.
I like this, and your other writing about music.
__________________
Life sucks, and then you die

( Sung to the tune of the old Time jingle: "Time flies, and you are there!" )
calebprime is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2013, 09:07 AM   #82
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,435
Originally Posted by calebprime View Post
...
I have to understand why this is. Otherwise I'm just chasing my tail.

...
It's an opportunity to move the non-matching part of the self-similarity to the end of the series, where it's least audible. (?)

But, to my surprise, each result is different, not merely a rotation of the other results. (?!)
Indeed, there are small variations produced by rotating the series when they are n-1 orbits.

After I look at the best ones more closely, I'll choose one. One problem is that they will be mapped to diatonic scales (2 octaves of 7+7 notes), so I can't just look at these numbers and hear what they sound like. What I do know is that I want to avoid something that is really essentially the same as the Mallalieu (or 2 ^ n mod 13) series, simply because Robert Morris already wrote a piece based on that, and, my work has been about trying to find alternatives. Not because Mall is not a good series, but because I want to know if there is wiggle room. Can the alternatives -- all less than perfect -- also generate equally good pieces?

The best candidate series for my next piece. I've quickly grouped them together by basic likeness, but more work needs to be done.

If they all have a disguised but clear family resemblance to Mall, then today's work will have been in vain. (I will have learned something.)

12 2 0 7 3 9 1 6 8 5 4 13 10 11
1 4 2 9 5 11 3 8 10 7 6 13 12 0
2 5 3 10 6 12 4 9 11 8 7 13 0 1
3 6 4 11 7 0 5 10 12 9 8 13 1 2

6 9 7 1 10 3 8 0 2 12 11 13 4 5 these are just inversions of top group
7 10 8 2 11 4 9 1 3 0 12 13 5 6
9 12 10 4 0 6 11 3 5 2 1 13 7 8
10 0 11 5 1 7 12 4 6 3 2 13 8 9
11 1 12 6 2 8 0 5 7 4 3 13 9 10




0 9 5 3 8 2 1 13 10 11 6 12 4 7
12 8 4 2 7 1 0 13 9 10 5 11 3 6
11 7 3 1 6 0 12 13 8 9 4 10 2 5

6 3 11 5 10 9 13 0 1 7 2 4 8 12
__________________
Life sucks, and then you die

( Sung to the tune of the old Time jingle: "Time flies, and you are there!" )

Last edited by calebprime; 14th March 2013 at 09:13 AM.
calebprime is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2013, 10:10 AM   #83
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,435
Originally Posted by calebprime View Post
Indeed, there are small variations produced by rotating the series when they are n-1 orbits.

After I look at the best ones more closely, I'll choose one. One problem is that they will be mapped to diatonic scales (2 octaves of 7+7 notes), so I can't just look at these numbers and hear what they sound like. What I do know is that I want to avoid something that is really essentially the same as the Mallalieu (or 2 ^ n mod 13) series, simply because Robert Morris already wrote a piece based on that, and, my work has been about trying to find alternatives. Not because Mall is not a good series, but because I want to know if there is wiggle room. Can the alternatives -- all less than perfect -- also generate equally good pieces?

The best candidate series for my next piece. I've quickly grouped them together by basic likeness, but more work needs to be done.

If they all have a disguised but clear family resemblance to Mall, then today's work will have been in vain. (I will have learned something.)

12 2 0 7 3 9 1 6 8 5 4 13 10 11
1 4 2 9 5 11 3 8 10 7 6 13 12 0
2 5 3 10 6 12 4 9 11 8 7 13 0 1
3 6 4 11 7 0 5 10 12 9 8 13 1 2

6 9 7 1 10 3 8 0 2 12 11 13 4 5 these are just inversions of top group
7 10 8 2 11 4 9 1 3 0 12 13 5 6
9 12 10 4 0 6 11 3 5 2 1 13 7 8
10 0 11 5 1 7 12 4 6 3 2 13 8 9
11 1 12 6 2 8 0 5 7 4 3 13 9 10





0 9 5 3 8 2 1 13 10 11 6 12 4 7
12 8 4 2 7 1 0 13 9 10 5 11 3 6
11 7 3 1 6 0 12 13 8 9 4 10 2 5

6 3 11 5 10 9 13 0 1 7 2 4 8 12

All of the ones I hi-lighted are basically Mallalieu plus a couple of notes, like before. (I could do a piece where this resemblance wouldn't be audible, but I don't want to unless I have to.)

There are two more groups to examine. Hopefully there will be something new in one of those two.
__________________
Life sucks, and then you die

( Sung to the tune of the old Time jingle: "Time flies, and you are there!" )
calebprime is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2013, 10:18 AM   #84
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,435
Originally Posted by calebprime View Post
Indeed, there are small variations produced by rotating the series when they are n-1 orbits.

After I look at the best ones more closely, I'll choose one. One problem is that they will be mapped to diatonic scales (2 octaves of 7+7 notes), so I can't just look at these numbers and hear what they sound like. What I do know is that I want to avoid something that is really essentially the same as the Mallalieu (or 2 ^ n mod 13) series, simply because Robert Morris already wrote a piece based on that, and, my work has been about trying to find alternatives. Not because Mall is not a good series, but because I want to know if there is wiggle room. Can the alternatives -- all less than perfect -- also generate equally good pieces?

The best candidate series for my next piece. I've quickly grouped them together by basic likeness, but more work needs to be done.

If they all have a disguised but clear family resemblance to Mall, then today's work will have been in vain. (I will have learned something.)

12 2 0 7 3 9 1 6 8 5 4 13 10 11
1 4 2 9 5 11 3 8 10 7 6 13 12 0
2 5 3 10 6 12 4 9 11 8 7 13 0 1
3 6 4 11 7 0 5 10 12 9 8 13 1 2

6 9 7 1 10 3 8 0 2 12 11 13 4 5 these are just inversions of top group
7 10 8 2 11 4 9 1 3 0 12 13 5 6
9 12 10 4 0 6 11 3 5 2 1 13 7 8
10 0 11 5 1 7 12 4 6 3 2 13 8 9
11 1 12 6 2 8 0 5 7 4 3 13 9 10




0 9 5 3 8 2 1 13 10 11 6 12 4 7
12 8 4 2 7 1 0 13 9 10 5 11 3 6
11 7 3 1 6 0 12 13 8 9 4 10 2 5

6 3 11 5 10 9 13 0 1 7 2 4 8 12
This one is AIS #12 plus a couple notes, which would suit me ok -- it's not Mall.

012 0137584A92B60137584A92B6 MOF count: 7/8*
C,Db,Eb,G,F,Ab,E,Bb,A,D,B,F#,C,Db,Eb,G,F,Ab,E,Bb,A ,D,B,F#
1,2,4,10,3,8,6,11,5,9,7,6,1,2,4,10,3,8,6,11,5,9,7, 6
11,10,8,2,9,4,6,1,7,3,5,6,11,10,8,2,9,4,6,1,7,3,5, 6
5,10,8,2,3,4,6,7,1,9,11,6,5,10,8,2,3,4,6,7,1,9,11, 6
7,2,4,10,9,8,6,5,11,3,1,6,7,2,4,10,9,8,6,5,11,3,1, 6 (perfect 6-note mof: every-other note = every note)


This other group of series is not an all-interval series, and has no resemblance to Mall.

0 9 5 3 8 2 1 13 10 11 6 12 4 7
12 8 4 2 7 1 0 13 9 10 5 11 3 6
11 7 3 1 6 0 12 13 8 9 4 10 2 5

So, now I have two prospects to play around with and get into a little deeper.
__________________
Life sucks, and then you die

( Sung to the tune of the old Time jingle: "Time flies, and you are there!" )
calebprime is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2013, 05:52 PM   #85
CplFerro
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,962
Originally Posted by aggle-rithm View Post
It just so happens that I've written a blog post on this subject recently:

http://www.johnmreese.net/music/

I mainly use this blog to bounce ideas around in my head. Kind of like caleb does with his threads.
Thanks, aggle, you're helping deepen the mystery of classical music for me.

Cpl Ferro
CplFerro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2013, 06:45 AM   #86
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,435
Originally Posted by CplFerro View Post
Thanks, aggle, you're helping deepen the mystery of classical music for me.

Cpl Ferro
Maybe this will help.

There's a tradition of Western Classical music that we're talking about here.

It has several things that make it what it is. These are its achievements, in a way:

1) Notation, allowing a piece to be specified without it being part of an oral/aural tradition. This is, basically, writing or literacy, and all that goes with that.

2) The "miracle" of harmony that moves. (Think of a Bach chorale, or even a barbershop quartet.) The relationship of all the voices sounding at once is harmonious, but the harmonies change over time into different harmonies while remaining harmonious. And, very important, each voice has some independence from the others. This independence is called counterpoint, when it reaches a certain level.

("Voice" here means a musical part, not necessarily literally a human voice.)

These two things, separately and together, help provide the foundation for the sense of musical narrative that AR is emphasizing.

Long forms can be written down by individuals and performed by others who the composers have never met. The long forms are made possible by this 2-dimensional (vertical + horizontal) combination of movement and harmony.

Other musical traditions have other aspects developed to a wonderful degree, but it's notation and independent-voiced harmony -- among other things -- that make Western Classical music unique.

I'm not particularly good at talking about this.
__________________
Life sucks, and then you die

( Sung to the tune of the old Time jingle: "Time flies, and you are there!" )

Last edited by calebprime; 15th March 2013 at 07:16 AM. Reason: "help provide the foundation" more cautious, weasely
calebprime is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2013, 05:15 AM   #87
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,435
This morning I learned a little technical detail about Logic (my music sequencing software) that will probably change my working life.

It's one of the strange facts about trying to make music with non-standard tunings that whether some little software feature is implemented can largely determine the direction of the work.

The other point to be made is that all of the approaches one takes teach one something, they all add up. So nothing is in vain, if you end up using it.

The third point is that I've learned that when you have a technical question with Logic, it's nearly useless to read the manual.* It's much better, generally, to Google the question, get some clues from other users.

* The manual is over 1600 pages, for starters.

--------------------

Today I learned that polyphonic aftertouch code in Logic can be mapped to fine-tuning of pitch in the Logic EXS24 sampler instruments (the meat-and-potato instrument of Logic.)

This means that a no-limit, no-hierarchy, completely-changeable-at-any-moment approach to tuning is possible, without any range limitations.

Does this mean that all those fixed keyboard scales I designed -- and in some cases, practiced for over ten years so that they became automatic -- were a waste of time? No, because they taught me a lot of things that I couldn't have learned without them.

Everything comes to bear, in alternate tuning.

Even the crappy, simplistic features that the designers of Logic put into place for alternate tunings. These are all intended to be no-brainers, but are so riddled with simplifying assumptions that they are useless, except within narrow limits. Even they are useful if you want to make a quick-and-dirty microtonal piece with only a few pitches. Even the so-called Hermode tuning feature is useful for somebody. (Not me.)

If you're using the sequencer in Logic, and the note-lists, the new approach I found today is the no-limit-but-difficult approach. You set up your instruments in conventional 12-tone tuning. You play a note, or type it in. You add a line of code telling the instruments exactly what fine-tuning it has.

The advantage of this is that -- unlike pitch-bend -- it's specific to each note, so you can have unlimited polyphony, i.e., chords. Chords are what interest me about microtonality in the first place. I'm a harmony nut.

This approach is too gnarly for beginners, because all the fences and all the landmarks are removed.

It means you could go from any tuning to any other tuning instantly without workarounds.

Hierarchic and simplifying assumptions about how a composer usually works -- designed in the software to make things easier -- have been the bane of my existence. They're like fences.

So simple, yet the implications for how I proceed are huge. You don't find this in the manual or discussed online under "tuning" or "microtones"; you have to put a bunch of different pieces of the puzzle together. Instead, there will be a few people on the tuning-lists online who will appreciate it.

Everything is a trade-off.

I'm genuinely excited, think I've found a new direction. This makes adaptive no-limit JI possible.
__________________
Life sucks, and then you die

( Sung to the tune of the old Time jingle: "Time flies, and you are there!" )

Last edited by calebprime; 17th March 2013 at 05:34 AM.
calebprime is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2013, 07:30 AM   #88
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,435
Originally Posted by calebprime View Post
This morning I learned a little technical detail about Logic (my music sequencing software) that will probably change my working life.

...
The third point is that I've learned that when you have a technical question with Logic, it's nearly useless to read the manual.* It's much better, generally, to Google the question, get some clues from other users.

* The manual is over 1600 pages, for starters.

--------------------

Today I learned that polyphonic aftertouch code in Logic can be mapped to fine-tuning of pitch in the Logic EXS24 sampler instruments (the meat-and-potato instrument of Logic.)

...Snip


Unfounded optimism.

Get this. The Logic sequencer has polyphonic aftertouch. The sampler instruments, however, don't react POLYPHONICALLY to polyphonic aftertouch. So it has the same effect as channel pressure.

So why call it polyphonic aftertouch? Maybe it actually does something, maybe it doesn't. But I can't use it for microtones.

The manual I saw quoted online says that the sampler instruments react to polyphonic aftertouch. They simply neglected to mention that it's polyphonic IN NAME ONLY.

You ***** and ******* and ******** !!!!

This is why, Logic, you are the Target Superstores of sequencers. You have ten zillion features, all shoddily put together. I hate you, Logic. Bells and Whistles. Not built with a certain kind of pro in mind -- the old pro, such as a Frank Zappa, a Wendy Carlos, or more humbly, a Calebprime.

Logic: Built half-way, to impress, but it doesn't really work like they claim.

There may be other workarounds, but boy, this game of finding weird workarounds in mass-produced gear is getting tired for me, after all these years.

Maybe I'm wrong. I'd really, really like to be wrong, but there's no one to ask.
__________________
Life sucks, and then you die

( Sung to the tune of the old Time jingle: "Time flies, and you are there!" )
calebprime is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2013, 05:22 AM   #89
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,435
https://www.box.com/s/g6313n63yhhl0cbubdtt

I'm happy with this, it's worth listening to. Four minutes.

It's called self sim study in e mixo, but it really is more like A major.

It's based on one of the self-similar number series listed above.

Details available if anyone is curious.

Aww hell, here's the number series: 6,3,11,5,10,9,13,0,1,7,2,4,8,12

Scored for PianoTech piano sound with a little harp, bell, string, and marimba.

It's a snow day!
__________________
Life sucks, and then you die

( Sung to the tune of the old Time jingle: "Time flies, and you are there!" )

Last edited by calebprime; 19th March 2013 at 05:24 AM.
calebprime is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2013, 05:15 AM   #90
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,435
The piece linked to in the above post is worth hearing. Check it out.

This post, however, is just to document one of "life's little victories" -- like that cartoon by ?Keith Knight in Funny Times. He's good.

The victory is that I solved a technical problem in no time at all, without knowing what I was doing. Pure intuition, use of tech, muddling through, dumb luck.

The problem is this: Given a long, perfect self-similar sequence, how do you derive shorter sequences from it that A) most resemble it and B) have the closest thing to perfect self-similarity that is possible? There's no formula that I'm aware of.

Here's my perfect self-similar sequence for starters, from the indices of 3 ^ n mod 17: (I'm using dots for spacers so that the tables line up, because I'm too lazy to make tables the right way):

16..14..17..12..5...15..11..10..2...3...7...13..4. ..9...6...8

http://www.google.com/search?q=%2216...5%2C15%2C11%22

Take every second number from the second number, every third from the third, every nth from the nth, and it's perfectly self-identical. That's math.

Now, problem is, to get a 14 or 12 or 10-number version, you can't just lop off a few numbers and expect it will work.

But somehow, I managed to get the results below by looking at the desired columns and just plowing through the problem. If I'd really tried to understand what I'm doing, it would take me a long time, which I don't have. I'm a composer, dammit.

These are, at least, results that are exactly what I was looking for. I just can't entirely explain how I did it or why it works. Took me about an hour. (If I didn't do this by muddling through, it might have hung me up for days or weeks.)



16..14..17..12..5...15..11..10..2...3...7...13..4. ..9...6...8
15..13..16..11..4...14..10..9...1...2...6...12..3. ..8...5...7
14..12..15..10..3...13..9...8...16..1...5...11..2. ..7...4...6
13..11..14..9...2...12..8...7...15..16..4...10..1. ..6...3...5
12..10..13..8...1...11..7...6...14..15..3...9...16 ..5...2...4
11..9...12..7...16..10..6...5...13..14..2...8...15 ..4...1...3
10..8...11..6...15..9...5...4...12..13..1...7...14 ..3...16..2
9...7...10..5...14..8...4...3...11..12..16..6...13 ..2...15..1
8...6...9...4...13..7...3...2...10..11..15..5...12 ..1...14..16
7...5...8...3...12..6...2...1...9...10..14..4...11 ..16..13..15
6...4...7...2...11..5...1...16..8...9...13..3...10 ..15..12..14
5...3...6...1...10..4...16..15..7...8...12..2...9. ..14..11..13
4...2...5...16..9...3...15..14..6...7...11..1...8. ..13..10..12
3...1...4...15..8...2...14..13..5...6...10..16..7. ..12..9...11
2...0...3...14..7...1...13..12..4...5...9...15..6. ..11..8...10
1...15..2...13..6...16..12..11..3...4...8...14..5. ..10..7...9

best fit 14!

13..11..14..9...4...12..8...7...1...2...5...10..3. ..6
11..9...12..7...2...10..5...6...13..14..3...8...1. ..4
9...7...10..6...14..8...3...4...11..12..1...5...13 ..2
7...6...8...4...12..5...1...2...9...10..13..3...11 ..14
6...4...5...2...10..3...13..14..7...8...11..1...9. ..12
4...2...3...14..8...1...11..12..6...5...9...13..7. ..10
2...14..1...12..5...13..9...10..4...3...7...11..6. ..8
14..12..13..10..3...11..7...8...2...1...6...9...4. ..5
12..10..11..8...1...9...6...5...14..13..4...7...2. ..3
10..8...9...5...13..7...4...3...12..11..2...6...14 ..1
8...5...7...3...11..6...2...1...10..9...14..4...12 ..13
5...3...6...1...9...4...14..13..8...7...12..2...10 ..11
3...1...4...13..7...2...12..11..5...6...10..14..8. ..9
1...13..2...11..6...14..10..9...3...4...8...12..5. ..7

best fit 12:

11..9...12..7...3...10..1...5...4...2...6...8
9...7...10..5...2...8...11..12..3...1...4...6
7...5...8...12..1...6...9...10..2...11..3...4
5...12..6...10..11..4...7...8...1...9...2...3
12..10..4...8...9...3...5...6...11..7...1...2
10..8...3...6...7...2...12..4...9...5...11..1
8...6...2...4...5...1...10..3...7...12..9...11
6...4...1...3...12..11..8...2...5...10..7...9
4...3...11..2...10..9...6...1...12..8...5...7
3...2...9...1...8...7...4...11..10..6...12..5
2...1...7...11..6...5...3...9...8...4...10..12
1...11..5...9...4...12..2...7...6...3...8...10

best fit 10:

8...7...10..6...3...9...5...4...1...2
7...6...9...4...2...8...10..3...5...1
6...4...8...3...1...7...9...2...10..5
4...3...7...2...5...6...8...1...9...10
3...2...6...1...10..4...7...5...8...9
2...1...4...5...9...3...6...10..7...8
1...5...3...10..8...2...4...9...6...7
5...10..2...9...7...1...3...8...4...6
10..9...1...8...6...5...2...7...3...4
9...8...5...7...4...10..1...6...2...3


These satisfy the musical goal -- which is to have a pre-ordained series of pitches, within which lines move at slower speeds, strongly resemble each other, and add up -- as a composite texture -- to exactly that pre-ordained series. It's a trick, but it sounds good, and it's not possible to achieve, exactly, by writing counterpoint the old-fashioned way.
__________________
Life sucks, and then you die

( Sung to the tune of the old Time jingle: "Time flies, and you are there!" )

Last edited by calebprime; 21st March 2013 at 05:36 AM.
calebprime is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2013, 02:32 PM   #91
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,435
Originally Posted by calebprime View Post
...
best fit 10:

8...7...10..6...3...9...5...4...1...2
7...6...9...4...2...8...10..3...5...1
6...4...8...3...1...7...9...2...10..5
4...3...7...2...5...6...8...1...9...10
3...2...6...1...10..4...7...5...8...9
2...1...4...5...9...3...6...10..7...8
1...5...3...10..8...2...4...9...6...7
5...10..2...9...7...1...3...8...4...6
10..9...1...8...6...5...2...7...3...4
9...8...5...7...4...10..1...6...2...3
[/font]

...
This one's better, especially if mapped to pentatonic scales. It's perfect. You also found it before. It's not better than the one you found if you're thinking of it as an incomplete 12-tone series, potentially, but, otherwise, it's better.


8..7..10,6..4..9..1..5..2..3
7..6..9..5..3..8..0..4..1..2
6..5..8..4..2..7..9..3..0..1
5..4..7..3..1..6..8..2..9..0
4..3..6..2..0..5..7..1..8..9
3..2..5..1..9..4..6..0..7..8
2..1..4..0..8..3..5..9..6..7
1..0..3..9..7..2..4..8..5..6
0..9..2..8..6..1..3..7..4..5
9..8..1..7..5..0..2..6..3..4
__________________
Life sucks, and then you die

( Sung to the tune of the old Time jingle: "Time flies, and you are there!" )
calebprime is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2013, 03:45 PM   #92
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,435
B..D..C..Eb.Bb.F#.C#.E..Ab.G..F..A.
Ab.F#.A..E..C..G..Bb.D..C#.B..Eb.F.
Ab.C..A..Bb.F#.G..E..D..B..C#.F..Eb
C..Eb.Bb.F#.C#.E..D..F..G..B..A..Ab



The next step after figuring out the self-similar contour idea is to choose a slow-moving array of chords. This sounds down a 4th, so it all works with a sounding E pedal tone, which will be heard sometimes, sometimes not -- all except the ninth chord, which doesn't work with written A, sounding E. It's a cycle.

This is derived from the 12-tone version of the self-similar arrays posted above.

These chords may sound literally like slow chords, or be articulated some other way, or not sound at all -- only imply/determine a harmonic framework.

The chords/voices are designed so that the voices can be staggered in various ways and still sound good.

I've used this idea before. Accepting that I have few new ideas is the only way to keep working. It's what I do.

The strange thing about a harmonic framework/chord progression like this is that the actual sound result -- when fleshed out -- can sound lush or strident, happy or creepy, depending on what the top layers are doing.

It's more than an abstraction, less than a foreground thing. Right now I don't know whether these chords will be heard once over ten minutes, or multiple times.
__________________
Life sucks, and then you die

( Sung to the tune of the old Time jingle: "Time flies, and you are there!" )

Last edited by calebprime; 22nd March 2013 at 03:50 PM.
calebprime is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2013, 08:13 AM   #93
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,435
I just had a little encounter with 69Dodge, who has made me a handful of applications that I use in my work.

I was trying to use one of them to nail down the best-fit 14-element self-similar series. This turns out to be a little hard, because 14+1 -- unlike 16+1, 12+1, and 10+1 -- is not prime. (15 is not prime.) So some of my tricks don't work as easily.

The goal of having a self-similar series that gets shorter but remains self-similar, and still sounds like itself, is slightly trickier than I first thought.

This is because in practice, the rhythm, the series, and the mapping to actual pitches are all different things.

Turns out the best way to think of a 14-element self-similar series in this context is: 7+7 mapping to two octaves of any 7-note scale. But rhythmically, it's 14 elements with 3 rests, so that it's a 17-beat (or if more silence is desired 19-beat, 23-beat, etc.) cycle. That allows all the possible polyrhythms to work as they should.

I got a little confused trying to mentally juggle all this, while still keeping my musical goals in mind.

Looking for the answer, I found what seemed to be a little flaw in one of the apps 69Dodge wrote for me.

Our conversation went like this:

Calebprime: lots of

69Dodge, moments later:
Quote:
Ok, I think I understand what you want.

The attached new program works the same as the old one, except for one extra step: After it calculates each deviation d, it replaces d with modulus - d, if the latter is smaller.
I have to live with the way my brain works, when it works. Wordy and messy, but basically grounded in musical reality. 69Dodge always gets his end done without a lot of verbiage. He's efficient.

The app that 69Dodge revised turned out to not be necessary. Once I got clear in my head what I wanted to do with a 14-element series, I realized I had to treat it differently than the 12 and 10-element series.

Here are the finalfinal-until-I-revise-them-again tables, from which I can derive all my pitch material. The 16-element table is good for two octaves of octotonic (diminished) scales, 8+8. Or another approach I need to think about is whether mapping it to a pitch grid that doesn't match -- at the octave -- the number series, will work also. I have to try it.


Original 3 ^ n mod 17..16 elements
16..14..17..12..5...15..11..10..2...3...7...13..4. ..9...6...8
15..13..16..11..4...14..10..9...1...2...6...12..3. ..8...5...7
14..12..15..10..3...13..9...8...16..1...5...11..2. ..7...4...6
13..11..14..9...2...12..8...7...15..16..4...10..1. ..6...3...5
12..10..13..8...1...11..7...6...14..15..3...9...16 ..5...2...4
11..9...12..7...16..10..6...5...13..14..2...8...15 ..4...1...3
10..8...11..6...15..9...5...4...12..13..1...7...14 ..3...16..2
9...7...10..5...14..8...4...3...11..12..16..6...13 ..2...15..1
8...6...9...4...13..7...3...2...10..11..15..5...12 ..1...14..16
7...5...8...3...12..6...2...1...9...10..14..4...11 ..16..13..15
6...4...7...2...11..5...1...16..8...9...13..3...10 ..15..12..14
5...3...6...1...10..4...16..15..7...8...12..2...9. ..14..11..13
4...2...5...16..9...3...15..14..6...7...11..1...8. ..13..10..12
3...1...4...15..8...2...14..13..5...6...10..16..7. ..12..9...11
2...0...3...14..7...1...13..12..4...5...9...15..6. ..11..8...10
1...15..2...13..6...16..12..11..3...4...8...14..5. ..10..7...9

14..revised again

13..11..0...9...4...12..8...7...1...2...5...10..3. ..6...--..--..--
12..10..13..8...3...11..7...6...0...1...4...9...2. ..5...--..--..--
11..9...12..7...2...10..6...5...13..0...3...8...1. ..4...--..--..--
10..8...11..6...1...9...5...4...12..13..2...7...0. ..3...--..--..--
9...7...10..5...0...8...4...3...11..12..1...6...13 ..2...--..--..--
8...6...9...4...13..7...3...2...10..11..0...5...12 ..1...--..--..--
7...5...8...3...12..6...2...1...9...10..13..4...11 ..0...--..--..--
6...4...7...2...11..5...1...0...8...9...12..3...10 ..13..--..--..--
5...3...6...1...10..4...0...13..7...8...11..2...9. ..12..--..--..--
4...2...5...0...9...3...13..12..6...7...10..1...8. ..11..--..--..--
3...1...4...13..8...2...12..11..5...6...9...0...7. ..10..--..--..--
2...0...3...12..7...1...11..10..4...5...8...13..6. ..9...--..--..--
1...13..2...11..6...0...10..9...3...4...7...12..5. ..8...--..--..--
0...12..1...10..5...13..9...8...2...3...6...11..4. ..7...--..--..--


best fit 12:
11..9...12..7...3...10..1...5...4...2...6...8
9...7...10..5...2...8...11..12..3...1...4...6
7...5...8...12..1...6...9...10..2...11..3...4
5...12..6...10..11..4...7...8...1...9...2...3
12..10..4...8...9...3...5...6...11..7...1...2
10..8...3...6...7...2...12..4...9...5...11..1
8...6...2...4...5...1...10..3...7...12..9...11
6...4...1...3...12..11..8...2...5...10..7...9
4...3...11..2...10..9...6...1...12..8...5...7
3...2...9...1...8...7...4...11..10..6...12..5
2...1...7...11..6...5...3...9...8...4...10..12
1...11..5...9...4...12..2...7...6...3...8...10


best fit 10:

8..7..10..6..4..9..1..5..2..3
7..6..9..5..3..8..0..4..1..2
6..5..8..4..2..7..9..3..0..1
5..4..7..3..1..6..8..2..9..0
4..3..6..2..0..5..7..1..8..9
3..2..5..1..9..4..6..0..7..8
2..1..4..0..8..3..5..9..6..7
1..0..3..9..7..2..4..8..5..6
0..9..2..8..6..1..3..7..4..5
9..8..1..7..5..0..2..6..3..4
__________________
Life sucks, and then you die

( Sung to the tune of the old Time jingle: "Time flies, and you are there!" )

Last edited by calebprime; 26th March 2013 at 08:21 AM.
calebprime is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2013, 03:35 PM   #94
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,435
Forget 14, Jake, it's Chinatown.

If you want the series to map to diatonic (7-note) scales -- the whole reason you were struggling with 14 in the first place -- just use the 16 or 12 or 10-note versions, and map to 7, and just live with the fact that the mapping is less elegant, and you can't always get the best contour fit to produce an octave relationship.

Just walk away from 14. That way lies madness. Or, start a piece with a 14-note pattern, but don't try to get there after the fact, after the horse has already left the barn. Don't try this Procrustean bed in Chinatown, to mix your metaphors.

Use the work you've done so far and continue on and write a piece. Life is short. Chinatown is only a movie.
__________________
Life sucks, and then you die

( Sung to the tune of the old Time jingle: "Time flies, and you are there!" )
calebprime is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2013, 07:16 AM   #95
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,435
Thanks, I feel much better.

In fact, mapping a 16 or 12 or 10-element series to a 7-note scale works ok. It just means that there are moments when intervals other than octaves are produced in the extreme registers. Mostly this is ok. Everything is a trade-off. A 16-element series mapped to a 7+7 diatonic scale occasionally creates an interval of 2 octaves and a third when you exceed the confines of one modulus. That's a fairly euphonious interval, so all is well.


Originally Posted by calebprime View Post
B..D..C..Eb.Bb.F#.C#.E..Ab.G..F..A.
Ab.F#.A..E..C..G..Bb.D..C#.B..Eb.F.
Ab.C..A..Bb.F#.G..E..D..B..C#.F..Eb
C..Eb.Bb.F#.C#.E..D..F..G..B..A..Ab



...
Having chosen my foreground patterns (flesh) and this background chorale (bones), there's a stage that involves some simple analysis.

The analysis involves figuring out which scales will work.

Each chord might go with any of basically 6 types of scales: Whole tone, hexatonic (1+3 semitones), major, melodic minor, harmonic major, harmonic minor, or octatonic (1/2 step + whole step, 1+2 semitones). Harmonic major and harmonic minor are the same "type". All the modes of these scale-types are included, so major includes Dorian, Lydian, Locrian, etc.

I'm only including scales with no 2 adjacent minor seconds, for purposes of sanity, euphony, and best mapping.

For now, I'm calling an overtone series scale Melodic Minor type.

Even with these simplifying assumptions, things get slightly more complicated.

Each chord can be thought of as:

1) By itself
2) With an A pedal
3) With the next chord
4) With the previous chord.

In each of these four cases, different scales are possible.

"Possible" is defined as: No 012, or two adjacent semitones (too dissonant and not a scale).

Each chord in each of the four scenarios above has a specific "space" or set of possible scales.

A is my overall tonality, but I might want to move away from it. I might want a smooth connection with the next chord (3), or a more abrupt one (1).

This is not taking into account possible staggering of voices -- where one or another comes in early or late -- which reduces the possible number of scales, usually. It changes the game.

The first chord, C,Ab,Ab,B can be: Ab Hexatonic, A Harmonic Minor, E Harmonic Major, Ab/B Octotonic, or A Melodic Minor, when considered purely by itself.

The exact intonation of a given scale has a number of possibilities even within the basic material of my tuning system, which is an 87EDO approximation of these ratios (36 pitches per octave) 1/1, 16/15, 13/12, 12/11, 11/10, 10/9, 9/8, 8/7, 7/6, 32/27, 6/5, 11/9, 5/4, 14/11, 9/7, 4/3, 15/11, 11/8, 7/5, 10/7, 16/11, 22/15, 3/2, 14/9, 11/7, 8/5, 18/11, 5/3, 27/16, 12/7, 7/4, 16/9, 9/5, 20/11, 11/6, 15/8.

This 36-note set can be thought of modally, also, meaning that there are a number of options for tuning the chorale, by moving the tuning base or anchor -- the 1/1 -- to different frequencies.

Self-similar patterns tend to create every possible combination of pitches within a scale, so this tends to make your choice of tunings more conservative, more 3-limit, if you will. The first priority is to avoid the bad approximations of 5ths (3/2 ratios) that inevitably seem to occur. In ye olden days, these were called "wolf" 5ths.

Perhaps a meantone tuning or 12-tone equal temperament would be better for a piece generated by self-similar series, for the above reason. But I'm committed to my 36-note tuning system, and have practiced it so long that I can play it in my sleep, so it's fairly "easy".

The piece might have passages where the self-similar series are not being used, where the strengths of the 36-note 13-limit tuning can really be heard.


The seductive thing about the self-similar idea is that you can generate complex textures from a little string of numbers as easily as falling off a log. It's a little music-making machine, and I find machines of this kind fascinating. Polyrhythms are a natural thing to explore in this world, because they're already there, embedded in the series.
__________________
Life sucks, and then you die

( Sung to the tune of the old Time jingle: "Time flies, and you are there!" )

Last edited by calebprime; 27th March 2013 at 07:27 AM.
calebprime is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th March 2013, 04:43 PM   #96
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,435
I'm pretty happy with this tuning as an incremental improvement over the old one. It's a little stronger in the 3/2's. Just wanted to document it, make a record.

It's basically 36 pitches of JI, but quantized to 130EDO.

There's a useful little page on 130EDO here:

https://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/130edo

The 3/2 of 130EDO is less sharp (wide) than in 87 EDO.

I tried chopping the EDO down by two to 65EDO and sacrificing some accuracy, but I wasn't happy after trying it out.

The way this is better than my previous scale is that certain pitches are slightly adjusted to make the "5ths" more accurate or available in all "modes". So now, to get a really accurate overtone series on /7, I have to "modulate" or pitch-bend. However, for my next piece, this scale/tuning will be slighter better.

In terms of practicality, 130EDO is no harder than 87EDO.

I can kinda shred with this scale because it's so similar to the one I practiced all those years. That fact completely outweighs the formal hairiness of the scale -- the asymmetry and unequal step-sizes.



Steps of 130 EDO relative: 10, 2, 3, 3, 2, 2, 3, 4, 3, 2, 4, 4, 2, 3, 7, 4, 2, 4, 2, 4, 2, 4, 7, 3, 2, 4, 4, 2, 3, 4, 3, 2, 2, 2, 4, 12

Steps of 130EDO absolute: 0, 10, 12, 15, 18, 20, 22, 25, 29, 32, 34, 38, 42, 44, 47, 54, 58, 60, 64, 66, 70, 72, 76, 83, 86, 88, 92, 96, 98, 101, 105, 108, 110, 112, 114, 118, 130

Cents difference: 92.308, 18.461, 27.693, 27.692, 18.461, 18.462, 27.692, 36.923, 27.693, 18.461, 36.923, 36.923, 18.462, 27.692, 64.616, 36.923, 18.461, 36.923, 18.462, 36.923, 18.461, 36.923, 64.616, 27.692, 18.462, 36.923, 36.923, 18.461, 27.693, 36.923, 27.692, 18.462, 18.461, 18.462, 36.923, 110.769

Cents from 1/1:0., 92.308, 110.769, 138.462, 166.154, 184.615, 203.077, 230.769, 267.692, 295.385, 313.846, 350.769, 387.692, 406.154, 433.846, 498.462, 535.385, 553.846, 590.769, 609.231, 646.154, 664.615, 701.538, 766.154, 793.846, 812.308, 849.231, 886.154, 904.615, 932.308, 969.231, 996.923, 1015.385, 1033.846, 1052.308, 1089.231

Scala File:

!
new 36 fix JI 130
36
!
92.30800
110.76900
138.46200
166.15400
184.61500
203.07700
230.76900
267.69200
295.38500
313.84600
350.76900
387.69200
406.15400
433.84600
498.46200
535.38500
553.84600
590.76900
609.23100
646.15400
664.61500
701.53800
766.15400
793.84600
812.30800
849.23100
886.15400
904.61500
932.30800
969.23100
996.92300
1015.38500
1033.84600
1052.30800
1089.23100
1200.00000
__________________
Life sucks, and then you die

( Sung to the tune of the old Time jingle: "Time flies, and you are there!" )

Last edited by calebprime; 28th March 2013 at 04:47 PM.
calebprime is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2013, 05:48 AM   #97
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,435
Why I like 171edo as a master tuning system

My background has been Just Intonation and of course 12 notes per octave.

I've been looking for a system of equal divisions of the octave (EDO) that would bridge the gap between a system of ratios and a system of equal divisions.

Such a system has to be very accurate, but defining accuracy turns out to be tricky.

For one thing, a little inaccuracy results in a little waver (beating) in a typical chord played by instruments with harmonic overtones -- instruments like plucked strings, bowed strings, woodwinds, organs, voice, etc. A little very slow waver actually sounds better to me than none at all.

It turns out that the tuning app I use called Lil' Miss Scale Oven for the Mac has a feature that gives you a clue about what EDOs are most accurate. But the answers it gives depend completely on what information you give it.

You enter some target ratios in a window.

You define how much accuracy in another window. (I like to enter this as n/50 -- so that I can get lots of detail and not miss anything.)

It figures out that so-many-steps will give you x number of cents (1200 per octave) mean deviation given the ratios you have entered.

So, you have to choose approximately how big, how accurate an EDO you're looking for, for what purpose.

My purpose is mainly Pythagorean chains of 3/2 approximations, and 13-limit JI, but without the chains. In other words, I want to hear fairly accurate "overtone series" chords, such as 8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15. I want to be able to have a chain of 3/2's of the same size as large as possible. I want to have somewhere between 50 and 300 notes as my master tuning system.

The whole idea of an EDO is to simplify your thinking and get rid of certain distinctions that you don't want to make.

For a long time I was happy enough with 87EDO, but I've found that the 3/2 approximation of 703.448 cents was a little too wide or big for chains of 3/2's to be accurate from one end of the chain to the other.

A master tuning system isn't something you try to sing. It's a system of the finest distinctions that you'll need to make for your music. Generally, the smaller the number, the more it simplifies -- so the more convenient -- but the less accurate it is.

I asked some of the tuning experts on a Yahoo tuning group.

I asked Lil' Miss Scale Oven, also, as described above.

Here are the answers that LMSO gives with different target ratios entered. As the size grows, the tuning is getting more accurate. The initial accuracy is arbitrary.

1/1, 3/2 -- 29,41,53,200,253,306 EDOs. (Very accurate "5ths" or 3/2s.)

1/1, 5/4, 3/2 -- 19,22,31,34,53,118,289,323,441 EDOs (a major triad.)

1/1, 5/4, 3/2, 7/4 -- 31,53,68,72,84,99,130,140,171,270,441 EDOs (triad plus harmonic seventh)

1/1, 9/8, 5/4, 11/8, 3/2, 7/4 -- 41,72,87,94,118,130,176,183,224,270,494 EDOs (add another 3-ratio and an 11-ratio)

1/1, 16/15, 9/8, 6/5, 5/4, 11/8, 3/2, 13/8, 27/16, 7/4, 15/8 -- (filling in the gaps, starting to approach my usual keyboard tuning) 41,53,72,77,87,118,130,183,224,270,407 EDOs


chain of approximate "4ths" or 4/3s: 9/5, 6/5, 8/5, 16/15, 64/45, 243/128, 81/64, 27/16, 9/8, 3/2, 1/1, 4/3, 16,9, 32/27, 128/81, 256/243, 45/32,15/8, 5/4 -- 53,118,171,323,335,376 EDOs



So, for me, 171EDO is in the sweet zone (The Goldilocks zone) between not too big and not too inaccurate, and does ratios of 3,5,7 and 15 very well, and 11s and 13s ok.

The approximation of a 3/2 in 171EDO is 701.754 cents. That is exactly 100 steps in 171EDO, so that's convenient.

It sounds a little brighter and a lot more accurate than the familiar "5th" or 3/2 approximation of 12 or 72edo at 700 cents. I like that.

171 is divisible by 3, so that means that a system of 171 pitches will have increments at exactly 400 and 800 cents -- an equal-tempered "augmented" triad with 1/1. That's a sound and a way of thinking that I like.

What I hear is that I can barely tell it from 13-limit Just Intonation, but it still simplifies things considerably, and brings all those ratios into a closed, additive system.

In the 11 ratios, it's as much as 4 cents off, but I can live with that.

It was very hard to choose. 224EDO is the most accurate. 159EDO (3x53) is excellent and is used by tuning expert Ozan Yarman. 89 is a good smaller system. 87 is good but for the wide 5ths.

72EDO is the choice of some of the Boston Microtonalists. I don't make the same assumptions they do, or have the same goals.

94EDO is an excellent all-around master system.

130EDO shows up on every list. I forget as I write this why I didn't choose it. (Maybe the harmonic 7ths weren't so good?)

But 171 is my choice for the next few years.
__________________
Life sucks, and then you die

( Sung to the tune of the old Time jingle: "Time flies, and you are there!" )

Last edited by calebprime; 8th April 2013 at 06:18 AM.
calebprime is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2013, 12:54 PM   #98
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,435
Originally Posted by calebprime View Post
...
So, for me, 171EDO is in the sweet zone (The Goldilocks zone) between not too big and not too inaccurate, and does ratios of 3,5,7 and 15 very well, and 11s and 13s ok.

The approximation of a 3/2 in 171EDO is 701.754 cents. That is exactly 100 steps in 171EDO, so that's convenient.

It sounds a little brighter and a lot more accurate than the familiar "5th" or 3/2 approximation of 12 or 72edo at 700 cents. I like that.

171 is divisible by 3, so that means that a system of 171 pitches will have increments at exactly 400 and 800 cents -- an equal-tempered "augmented" triad with 1/1. That's a sound and a way of thinking that I like.

What I hear is that I can barely tell it from 13-limit Just Intonation, but it still simplifies things considerably, and brings all those ratios into a closed, additive system.

In the 11 ratios, it's as much as 4 cents off, but I can live with that.

It was very hard to choose. 224EDO is the most accurate. 159EDO (3x53) is excellent and is used by tuning expert Ozan Yarman. 89 is a good smaller system. 87 is good but for the wide 5ths.

72EDO is the choice of some of the Boston Microtonalists. I don't make the same assumptions they do, or have the same goals.

94EDO is an excellent all-around master system.

130EDO shows up on every list. I forget as I write this why I didn't choose it. (Maybe the harmonic 7ths weren't so good?)

But 171 is my choice for the next few years.
130 would have been an equally good choice.

130 has fewer notes, but both 130 and 171 are in a zone where they are master tuning resolutions, not actual pitches assigned to some giant keyboard!

171 is divisible by 3, good, but 130 is divisible by 2, which is equally good. Neither are divisible by 6 -- or both 2 and 3.

For most of my 36-note keyboard tunings, they are virtually the same.

130 has slightly better 11-ratios.

171 has ever-so-slightly better relation between 16/15 and the lower 135/128 I sometimes use.

171 has ever-so-slightly better 5 and 7 ratios, but not by much. Ever so slightly better chain of 3/2's, but again, it's very close.

171 has an ever-so-slightly more copacetic relation of step-size to 3/2 approximation (100 steps to the "fifth".)

So 130 would have been fine, but 171 has a slight edge for what I do.

I reflect that we accept the complexity of our many systems of reckoning time: seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years.

So it's not entirely unreasonable or inconceivable to have 6,7, or 8-note scales inside an implicit 12-tone framework inside a 36-note keyboard setup inside a 171-note master scale inside a 1200-cent system.
__________________
Life sucks, and then you die

( Sung to the tune of the old Time jingle: "Time flies, and you are there!" )

Last edited by calebprime; 8th April 2013 at 12:55 PM.
calebprime is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th April 2013, 01:23 PM   #99
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,435
I always thought the old TV ad was funny where the guy says "The doctor says caffeine makes me nervous!" or something, asking her to pour him only half a cup.

https://www.box.com/s/6anfk84q5x37nkzdxr9w

So I titled this piece "My Doctor Says Caffeine".

It's in some strange mood between laughter, despair, and caffeine jitters. About 4 1/2 minutes.

Technically, it's a combination of improv and composition, with self-similar stuff, in a tuning which is a 171EDO quantization of 13-limit JI.

For Logic sequencer.

Neither my best nor my wurst. It's one of the first longer microtonal pieces that uses self-similar motives that I've been able to finish, so it's a step forward in that respect.

I intend to work again with many of the same elements, create a few more pieces along these lines before trying something different.

These numbers are a complete description of the scale I use, if you assume a 2:1 "octave": 13, 3, 5, 3, 2, 3, 4, 5, 4, 3, 5, 5, 3, 4, 9, 6, 2, 5, 7, 1, 2, 6, 9, 4, 3, 5, 5, 3, 4, 5, 4, 3, 2, 3, 5, 16

The same numbers, but absolute: 0, 13, 16, 21, 24, 26, 29, 33, 38, 42, 45, 50, 55, 58, 62, 71, 77, 79, 84, 91, 92, 94, 100, 109, 113, 116, 121, 126, 129, 133, 138, 142, 145, 147, 150, 155, 171
__________________
Life sucks, and then you die

( Sung to the tune of the old Time jingle: "Time flies, and you are there!" )

Last edited by calebprime; 17th April 2013 at 01:28 PM.
calebprime is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2013, 02:45 PM   #100
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,435
I like 77EDO, too

Originally Posted by calebprime View Post
My background has been Just Intonation and of course 12 notes per octave.

I've been looking for a system of equal divisions of the octave (EDO) that would bridge the gap between a system of ratios and a system of equal divisions.

Such a system has to be very accurate, but defining accuracy turns out to be tricky.

For one thing, a little inaccuracy results in a little waver (beating) in a typical chord played by instruments with harmonic overtones -- instruments like plucked strings, bowed strings, woodwinds, organs, voice, etc. A little very slow waver actually sounds better to me than none at all.

It turns out that the tuning app I use called Lil' Miss Scale Oven for the Mac has a feature that gives you a clue about what EDOs are most accurate. But the answers it gives depend completely on what information you give it.

You enter some target ratios in a window.

You define how much accuracy in another window. (I like to enter this as n/50 -- so that I can get lots of detail and not miss anything.)

It figures out that so-many-steps will give you x number of cents (1200 per octave) mean deviation given the ratios you have entered.

So, you have to choose approximately how big, how accurate an EDO you're looking for, for what purpose.

My purpose is mainly Pythagorean chains of 3/2 approximations, and 13-limit JI, but without the chains. In other words, I want to hear fairly accurate "overtone series" chords, such as 8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15. I want to be able to have a chain of 3/2's of the same size as large as possible. I want to have somewhere between 50 and 300 notes as my master tuning system.

The whole idea of an EDO is to simplify your thinking and get rid of certain distinctions that you don't want to make.

For a long time I was happy enough with 87EDO, but I've found that the 3/2 approximation of 703.448 cents was a little too wide or big for chains of 3/2's to be accurate from one end of the chain to the other.

A master tuning system isn't something you try to sing. It's a system of the finest distinctions that you'll need to make for your music. Generally, the smaller the number, the more it simplifies -- so the more convenient -- but the less accurate it is.

I asked some of the tuning experts on a Yahoo tuning group.

I asked Lil' Miss Scale Oven, also, as described above.

Here are the answers that LMSO gives with different target ratios entered. As the size grows, the tuning is getting more accurate. The initial accuracy is arbitrary.

1/1, 3/2 -- 29,41,53,200,253,306 EDOs. (Very accurate "5ths" or 3/2s.)

1/1, 5/4, 3/2 -- 19,22,31,34,53,118,289,323,441 EDOs (a major triad.)

1/1, 5/4, 3/2, 7/4 -- 31,53,68,72,84,99,130,140,171,270,441 EDOs (triad plus harmonic seventh)

1/1, 9/8, 5/4, 11/8, 3/2, 7/4 -- 41,72,87,94,118,130,176,183,224,270,494 EDOs (add another 3-ratio and an 11-ratio)

1/1, 16/15, 9/8, 6/5, 5/4, 11/8, 3/2, 13/8, 27/16, 7/4, 15/8 -- (filling in the gaps, starting to approach my usual keyboard tuning) 41,53,72,77,87,118,130,183,224,270,407 EDOs


chain of approximate "4ths" or 4/3s: 9/5, 6/5, 8/5, 16/15, 64/45, 243/128, 81/64, 27/16, 9/8, 3/2, 1/1, 4/3, 16,9, 32/27, 128/81, 256/243, 45/32,15/8, 5/4 -- 53,118,171,323,335,376 EDOs


...
171 is divisible by 3...

In the 11 ratios, it's as much as 4 cents off, but I can live with that.

It was very hard to choose. 224EDO is the most accurate. 159EDO (3x53) is excellent and is used by tuning expert Ozan Yarman. 89 is a good smaller system. 87 is good but for the wide 5ths.

72EDO is the choice of some of the Boston Microtonalists. I don't make the same assumptions they do, or have the same goals.

94EDO is an excellent all-around master system.

130EDO shows up on every list. I forget as I write this why I didn't choose it. (Maybe the harmonic 7ths weren't so good?)

But 171 is my choice for the next few years.
I've been playing around with quantizing some of my favorite 36-note tunings to 77EDO.

This is the smallest equal division of the octave I can use and still make the distinctions I want to make.

Harry Partch, in _Genesis of a Music_ -- considered a few EDOs up to 53, but rejected them.

77 is pretty good.

The 3/2 approximation is pretty accurate -- just a little flat. The other intervals are in a zone that is neither too far out of tune nor too perfectly in-tune. Every "overtone series" chord in 77EDO has some shimmer, some waver, some slow beating -- which is actually rather pleasant.

If you have an instrument with harmonic partials, and you play a perfectly-tuned chord of say, 4:5:6:7:8:9, the sum and differences all agree exactly, and you tend to hear the "JI growl" -- all the difference tones are 1, or the fundamental. (JI means Just Intonation.)

So in exact JI, there's a stark difference between overtone-series chords and dissonances.

In an EDO like 77, this difference is a little less, while still preserving the sweetness of these consonances. That shimmer or waver can actually be a little preferable.

Then, the combinatorial properties -- if you will -- of an EDO are different than in JI. It will be a closed system -- no transposition will introduce new tones, as happens in JI, infinitely. Also, some near-misses in JI become quantized to be slightly better than they used to be.

One ideal is to have the potential for a system where each tone can be taken (heard, understood) in as many senses as possible. 12EDO does this extremely well for such a small system.

53EDO is very good, but it doesn't represent the sound of certain ratios very well. Not well enough to satisfy Partch, or me.

What a composer ends of working with depends on what kind of timbres she wants to use, plus how much mobility, how much ambiguity, how much pure consonance, etc. All these things interact.

It's both a little maddening and also wonderful that every system has some advantages and disadvantages. They're all just slightly better or worse for some particular kind of sound, better or worse for some purpose.

However, if you want a very simple tuning system, 12EDO is sort of overdetermined to be the obvious choice, if you like a "5th" (3/2 approximation) that is pretty close. There are so many advantages to 12EDO that it makes sense that it would be adopted as the everyday, common tuning.

RIP Dean Drummond, microtonalist and Partch scholar. IIRC, he favored 31EDO. Looking at it now, the 3/2 approximation of 31EDO is 696.774 cents -- so it's a lot "flatter" or "narrower" than 12EDO. 31EDO is a system which is similar to the mean-tone systems that rob the 5th of Peter to pay the 3rds of Paul, so to speak. These are good systems, too, but not what I'm after. The 5ths are flat, but the major thirds are nearly perfect. (10 steps of 31EDO comes in at 387.097 cents vs. a 5/4 ratio of 386.313 cents.)
__________________
Life sucks, and then you die

( Sung to the tune of the old Time jingle: "Time flies, and you are there!" )

Last edited by calebprime; 20th April 2013 at 03:19 PM.
calebprime is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2013, 03:40 AM   #101
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,435
As part of my researches this morning, I ran across a couple of articles about the reasons composers explore and use alternate tunings.

The first one I link to here is by Kyle Gann, composer and music critic (former?) for The Village Voice.

I like this very much. I'm basically in his camp.

http://www.kylegann.com/JIreasons.html


The thing is, what seems do-able or practical vs. far-fetched can change depending on a lot of contingent things, such as the availability of software or good inexpensive generalized keyboards. Lil' Miss Scale Oven has certainly changed my life.


Here's another link to an entirely different perspective, by "Chuckles McGee".

http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/mi...out+xenharmony

I include it to show the diversity of opinion and taste. However, I have very little sympathy for or interest in his points.

Which is to say, I'm not that interested in "common misconceptions" or the learning process, or psychoacoustic tests done on average listeners.

I think like Kyle Gann -- from the perspective of a composer who does this stuff all the time.

Controversy, journalism, social issues, school, shocking the bourgeoisie, reaching the masses, common misconceptions -- none of these need to interest a composer. A composer merely has to be honest with himself, herself.

There was another frank exchange of views in the xenharmonic pages that was also revealing. I'll dig it up later and link to it. Again, I have little sympathy for one perspective, but his points are interesting.

When I say I have little sympathy, I speak as someone who is on a journey, who is saying, essentially: "No time for that! That doesn't apply to me. That's just about rhetoric and argument and justification."
__________________
Life sucks, and then you die

( Sung to the tune of the old Time jingle: "Time flies, and you are there!" )

Last edited by calebprime; 22nd April 2013 at 03:47 AM.
calebprime is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2013, 04:37 AM   #102
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,435
Here's the other exchange.

Under the heading Why Microtonality?

http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Why+Microtonality%3F

The somewhat interesting counterpoint comes from "a recovering microtonalist". Calling himself that is a bit snarky. He makes some good points, however.

But there's nothing in what he says that concerns me or interests me personally. It's only interesting if you want to talk about issues or explain things to people. It's not interesting if you want to *do* something.
__________________
Life sucks, and then you die

( Sung to the tune of the old Time jingle: "Time flies, and you are there!" )
calebprime is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2013, 09:43 AM   #103
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,435
I might as well post the results of a few days of enjoyable work.

Using the "waffle iron" in LMSO, I made a 13-limit JI rectangle, with a long chain of 3/2's or near-3/2's. I trimmed out unnecessary ratios until I had 43 pitches.

1/1, 256/243, 16/15, 13/12, 12/11, 11/10,10/9, 9/8, 8/7, 7/6, 32/27, 6/5, 11/9,16/13, 5/4, 81/64, 9/7, 13/10, 4/3, 11/8, 18/13, (7/5 or 45/32), (64/45 or 10/7), 13/9, 16/11, 3/2, 20/13, 14/9, 11/7, 8/5, 13/8, 18/11, 5/3, 27/16, 12/7, 7/4, 16/9, 9/5, 20/11, 11/6, 24/13, 15/8, 243/128

Then, using various means including my ear, the Xenharmonic Wiki, LMSO, and my knowledge of theory, I quantized these ratios to a series of equal-tempered approximations.

These were chosen to be fairly accurate, with a 3/2 approximation (a "5th") that is not far from JI ( 701.95319 cents.)

I like a 5th that is between 701 and 703, with 700 cents being acceptable.


Below 77edo, I can't really get enough accuracy for 13-limit.

As the number of the EDO increases, it has less and less "personality" as an EDO, and more accuracy and flexability. One uses subsets of these EDOs, because they have too many pitches to be practical to use all at once.

The higher-numbered EDOs are where JI and equal-tempered thinking meet. Somewhere above 400 it becomes sort of ridiculous to call it an EDO, and it starts having little advantage over simply thinking in cents.

The best EDOs below 77 for JI are 53 and 46, imo.

Here are the best of the best: A combination of subjective and objective judgements. They each have something that they do best.


The honor roll:

77,87,94,99,

130,135,159,164,166,171,183

200,207,224,253,270,

306,311,323,378
__________________
Life sucks, and then you die

( Sung to the tune of the old Time jingle: "Time flies, and you are there!" )
calebprime is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th April 2013, 12:07 PM   #104
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,435
Originally Posted by calebprime View Post
...
The honor roll:

77,87,94,99,

130,135,159,164,166,171,183

200,207,224,253,270,

306,311,323,378
A slightly more inclusive honor roll:

65, 70, 75, 77, 82, 87, 89, 94, 99, (109 extreme!), 111, 118, 128, 130, 135, 142, 147, 159, 164, 166, 171, 183, 200, 207, 224, 253, 270, 282, 289, 306, 311, 323, 335, 359, 373, 378

These are the equal divisions of the octave (EDOs) that have a 3/2 approximation fairly close to 702, with some other good feature, with the requirement that the higher the EDO, the more accurate it be, below 400.

441EDO may be very accurate, but the number is above my arbitrary cutoff of 400.

Here's a breakdown of the EDOs by how large the 3/2 is. This 3/2 approximation was entered into LMSO, and it found successively larger EDOs that approximated that number with increasing accuracy.

Almost all of the usual suspects show up in this list, except perhaps 19. My bias is for 5ths above 700, not "meantone" 5ths.


the data:


(701.0 to 703.5 is central range, higher edos must be more accurate to make list)


"multiples" (edos that are some multiple of edos that *do* show up) that don't show up on LMSO cmd search:

12, 24, 36, 48

29, 58, 87, 116

41, 82, 123

53, 106, 159




EDOs by "5th" (or 3/2) size:

numbers in (parentheses) are thought to be too inaccurate for their size, at least in the 3-dimension



700 -- 12edo

700.2 -- 12, (257, 269, 281,293)

700.4 -- 12, (137, 149, 161, 173, 185, 197, 209, 221, 233, 245)

700.5 -- 12, 101, (113, 125, 137, 149, 161, 173, 185, 197)

700.7 -- 12, 77, 89, 101, (113, 125, 137, 286)

700.9 -- 12, 65, 77, 89, 101, (113)

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

701.0 -- 12, 53, 65, 77, 89, 101, (368)

701.1 -- 12, 53, 65, 77, 89, (368)

701.2 -- 12, 53, 65, 77, 89, (166)

701.3 -- 12, 41, 53, 65, 77

701.4 -- 12, 41, 53, 65, 77, 142

----------

701.5 -- 12, 41, 53, 65, (272, 337)

701.6 -- 12, 41, 53, 65, (183, 248, 313)

701.7 -- 12, 41, 53, 65, 118

701.8 -- 12, 29, 41, 53, 171, 224, 277

701.9 -- 12, 29, 41, 53, (995)

701.91 - 12, 29, 41, 53, (730)

701.92 - 12, 29, 41, 53, 359

701.93 - 12, 29, 41, 53, 306, 359, (465)

701.94 - 12, 29, 41, 53, 253, 306, 359

701.95 - 12, 29, 41, 53, 200, 253, 306, 359

----------------------------------------------

701.955- 12, 29, 41, 53, 200, 253, 306
plus pure 5/4 @ 386.314 -- 53, 118, 289, 323, 441,
plus temp 5/4 @ 384 -- 147, 200
plus temp 5/4 @ 387 -- 65, 118, 183, 282


----------------------------------------------

701.96 - 12, 29, 41, 53, 200, 253

701.97 - 12, 29, 41, 53, 147, 200, 253

701.98 - 12, 29, 41, 53, 147, 200, 253

701.99 - 12, 29, 41, 53, 147, 200

702.0 - 12, 29, 41, 53, 147, 200

---------------------------------------

702.05 - 12, 29, 41, 53, 94, 147

702.1 - 12, 29, 41, 53, 94, (335)

702.15 - 12, 29, 41, 53, 94, (323)

702.2 - 12, 29, 41, 94, 135, (311)

702.25 - 12, 29, 41, 94, 135, (311)

702.3 - 12, 29, 41, 135, 176, 217

702.4 - 12, 29, 41

702.5 - 12, 29, 41, (275)

702.6 - 12, 29, 41, 111

-----------------------------

702.7 - 12, 29, 41, 70, 111

702.8 - 12, 29, 41, 70, (181)

702.9 - 12, 29, 41, 70, (239)

703.0 - 12, 17, 29, 70, 99, (268, 367)

703.1 - 12, 17, 29, 70, 99, 128, (227)

703.2 - 12, 17, 29, 99, 128, (157),

703.3 - 12, 17, 29, (157, 186, *215*, 244, 273)

703.4 - 12, 17, 29, (476)

703.5 - 12, 17, 29,
=========================

703.6 - 12, 17, 29, 162

703.7 - 12, 17, 29, 104, (133), (162)

703.8 - 12, 17, 29, 75, 104, (237)

703.9 - 12, 17, 29, 75, 104, 179

704. - 12, 17, 29, 46, 75,

-------------------------------------------
704.1 - 12, 17, 29, 46, 75, 121, 196,


704.56 -- 109!
__________________
Life sucks, and then you die

( Sung to the tune of the old Time jingle: "Time flies, and you are there!" )

Last edited by calebprime; 24th April 2013 at 12:10 PM.
calebprime is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2013, 06:28 AM   #105
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,435
Tuning systems are just one part of music -- even music narrowly defined.

But tuning is multidimensional, subtle, dependent on many things other than pure mathematics. It's also full of surprises.

Several things that surprised me yesterday:

When I stretched the 3/2 as wide as 704.56 cents to make 109EDO, it still sounded ok. Not pure, but not bizarre.

When I narrowed the 3/2 to 697.674 cents to make 43edo, again, it sounded quite a bit different than pure, but it was still acceptable.

The attraction of practicing a 43-note scale tuned to 43EDO is that -- of course -- the fingerings are completely consistent.

Much depends on how PianoTeq is set up -- how long the strings are set to be, how much the octaves are stretched. To my surprise, 46EDO had a major third (5/4) that sounded more in-tune than the far more accurate 224EDO, given the stretched partials of the piano sound.

Then, there's context. If you get used to a lot of beating from a less accurate tuning like 43EDO, a far more accurate tuning like 171 sounds motionless at first, and therefore a little cold.

There are also effects that are volume-dependent. With more volume, you hear more detail, and more beating or interaction between tones. At higher volumes I tend to prefer more "pure" tunings.

If I were working with bell-sounds mainly, of course I'd be interested in different tunings.

Culture has little effect on how I hear in simple terms. By simple terms I mean the daily testing of chords, consonance and dissonance. But it has everything to do with my values and goals.

There's a thousand and one reasons why there is no "best" tuning -- only viable tunings for certain kinds of results.

I have weak absolute pitch but a very keen ear for beating or harmonicity, for chord qualities. That may be why I prefer larger, more irregular systems that mimic JI. I also tend to hear tonally, with the tonality organized around held notes, or "pedal" tones.

Tuning systems: Subtle, hard to describe. That makes them interesting to study, if you're in it for the long haul.
__________________
Life sucks, and then you die

( Sung to the tune of the old Time jingle: "Time flies, and you are there!" )

Last edited by calebprime; 25th April 2013 at 06:32 AM.
calebprime is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2013, 07:50 AM   #106
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,435
p/0/0:...............A..G..Bb.F..Db.Ab.B..Eb.D..C..E.. F# ri/10/1:.............C..E..D..Db.F..Ab.Eb.B..F#.A..G..Bb
ri/0/5:..............G..Bb.F..Db.Ab.B..A..C..D..F#.E..E b

ri/10/1:.............C..E..D..Db.F..Ab.Eb.B..F#.A..G..Bb
ri/0/5:..............G..Bb.F..Db.Ab.B..A..C..D..F#.E..E b
p/0/0:...............A..G..Bb.F..Db.Ab.B..Eb.D..C..E.. F#


ri/10/1:.............C..E..D..Db.F..Ab.Eb.B..F#.A..G..Bb
p/0/0:...............A..G..Bb.F..Db.Ab.B..Eb.D..C..E.. F#
ri/0/5:..............G..Bb.F..Db.Ab.B..A..C..D..F#.E..E b

(Some weird automatic forum formatting going on that I can't seem to work around, here, at the end of the lines.)


At my age, I'm happy enough to try to use the same old devices in new combinations. The pieces that result will be different enough. I'm happy enough to just keep on going.

How can I use the different things that I know? Make them work together? Have them play off each other in different episodes?

The last piece I wrote drew the comment from a microtonalist on a Yahoo list that it sounded rather like 12-tone tuning, with familiar scales. This is a mildly critical comment. I had to admit that it was partly true. It's a list for microtonal music.

I wish there were a composer's forum for the music I'm writing, which is neither intended to be shockingly original or new, nor to conform to someone else's agenda. It's not intended to be about microtonality any more than it is about any other single thing.

I'd like to write for a group of people, but without any politics or group dymanics involved. There's only one person who knows what I can and cannot do, what I need to work on, what I can reasonably expect to accomplish: me.

I'm still hoping to have a microtonal sound in parts of my pieces, but I do rely on 12-tone thinking and techniques. That, simply, is what I do. There's no point in throwing out the stuff I know at this time in my life only because it would elicit praise from a few people because it coincides with their agenda.

Still, ultimately I want praise for the right reasons: Because I did the best I could, and that was good enough, and the result made sense.

Too bad there's no sky daddy.

Instead, there's the example of other artists -- from Gerhard Richter to John Coltrane to...anybody.
__________________
Life sucks, and then you die

( Sung to the tune of the old Time jingle: "Time flies, and you are there!" )

Last edited by calebprime; 26th April 2013 at 07:52 AM.
calebprime is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2013, 04:11 PM   #107
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,435
https://www.box.com/s/48wc435slumb9ano9cc9 (aif version)

https://www.box.com/s/oo4tlpee811uj5j7a7g9 (mp3 version)

Here's a new piece. About 12 1/2 minutes. Has a little of everything I know.

Called Opening the Window.
__________________
Life sucks, and then you die

( Sung to the tune of the old Time jingle: "Time flies, and you are there!" )
calebprime is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2013, 03:14 PM   #108
blobru
Philosopher
 
blobru's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,900
Originally Posted by calebprime View Post
... Opening the Window.
blobru likes it a lot...

the clear pane frames the question:
what is the future of sympathy?

kalimba safaris follow xylophone antelopes and
five timely breezes through tin pan alley mid
timid bulls wading china shops tamely as
pupils dilating at matadors mating
with philanthropist nudes bored
stiff bit actors painting still
lifes of lattes
may storms invading
gazelle lightning silhouettes
leaping balletically in a heat pink twilight
go viral with thumb-texted caresses xoxo

is it the echoes of sound barriers broken
or the rockets of armageddon
raining down on my suburban
boston shelter
lost in
the distant roar of the one great ocean
or monday morning workgangs laying sewer pipe?

conspiracies abound
roughly rounded-up theories congregate for lunch
phones the size of coffee spoons
rattle on and rattle off abstractedly
the world has been diagnosed
to everyone's relief
birds return to their business
extracting worms from the spit earth cracks in sidewalk 6A-elm

a black man it sounds like sells ice cream to an asian liberally
sprinkled with licorice jujubes
the ice cream not the asian
not that it matters all that much except to him i guess
because it doesn't really matter you know
but you knew that already
the off-whites and semi-hispanics are playing baseball
with sticks and stones and names
and babies crying in rush hour traffic homecoming again
i hear a home run
somebody cheering
distant roars and whispers
barriers broken
peace at last
please

tonight
i am a mestizo
and the sold and the soul of the world
feels almost right
enough
to be
opening
the window:
__________________
"Say to them, 'I am Nobody!'" -- Ulysses to the Cyclops

"Never mind. I can't read." -- Hokulele to the Easter Bunny
blobru is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2013, 06:09 AM   #109
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,435
Yes
__________________
Life sucks, and then you die

( Sung to the tune of the old Time jingle: "Time flies, and you are there!" )
calebprime is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2013, 06:18 AM   #110
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,435
118EDO sounds nearly the same as 171EDO and has 53 fewer notes.

The observant music student will notice how EDO numbers add up, recur.

I'm trying to commit. To commit to a 43-pitch scale based on 13-limit JI, with pitches adjusted to make a long 3-limit chain.

43EDO would be consistent, but it sounds a little too honkey-tonk.

Stretching the octave doesn't help.

The EDOs that approximate this JI scale well enough are: 77, 94, 118, 171, 224.

There may be some convenience to reducing the EDO approximation of the scale from 171 to 118: Some elimination of annoying "near misses" when the scale is shifted modally or transposed.

The hard part is the commitment.

No one's going to pat me on the back.

Practice like a blind man. Like a prisoner chained to the radiator. Like your life depends on it. Like you just don't care. Like there's infinite time and no tomorrow.

The goal is not memorizing particular licks or playing anything impressive, it's knowing without thinking where the pitches are, the scales, the patterns.

Start with the octaves and the obvious landmarks: 3/2 and 4/3, 5th and 4th.

A semitone or approximately 16/15 is usually 4 keys, except when it isn't.

Courage.

Eyes shut.
__________________
Life sucks, and then you die

( Sung to the tune of the old Time jingle: "Time flies, and you are there!" )

Last edited by calebprime; 20th May 2013 at 06:30 AM.
calebprime is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2013, 04:24 PM   #111
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,435
I was lacking in conviction practicing that damn scale, so I went back to composing.

Here's another of the self-similar pieces.

Motors and Some Wiffling

mp3: https://www.box.com/s/f1vwddt12taenj095nsj

.aif: https://www.box.com/s/voon6xnmu56lufnlevl7


I might try to write some microtonal solo piano pieces next, not sure.
__________________
Life sucks, and then you die

( Sung to the tune of the old Time jingle: "Time flies, and you are there!" )
calebprime is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2013, 11:39 AM   #112
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,435
nah. At my age, it's probably too late to really master a completely new 43-note scale.

But age has its consolations. One of them is efficiency.

I came up with this chorale/array -- basis for next piece -- in almost no time, and it's so purty and pregnant with possibility that I just have to post it:

A..Bb.F#.Eb.F..B..C..G..Ab.D..E..C#. (cycle, repeat)
F#.C..C#.G#.A..Eb.F..D..Bb.B..G..E..
Bb.F#.Eb.F..B..C..G..Ab.D..E..C#.A..
C..C#.G..A..F#.D..Eb.B..Ab.Bb.E..F..


It's what I call a "stagger" chorale. Any voice or pair of voices can move one position forward or back. (two little exceptions). Some voices can move more. All very resonant jazzoid chords.

A lot of 0146 and related cells.
__________________
Life sucks, and then you die

( Sung to the tune of the old Time jingle: "Time flies, and you are there!" )

Last edited by calebprime; 13th July 2013 at 11:42 AM.
calebprime is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2013, 03:22 PM   #113
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
Originally Posted by calebprime View Post
Motors and Some Wiffling

mp3: https://www.box.com/s/f1vwddt12taenj095nsj
Sounds suspiciously tonal...
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.
aggle-rithm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2013, 03:23 PM   #114
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
Originally Posted by calebprime View Post
I might try to write some microtonal solo piano pieces next, not sure.
Wait...wouldn't you need a microtonal piano for that?
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.
aggle-rithm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2013, 10:11 AM   #115
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,435
Originally Posted by aggle-rithm View Post
Sounds suspiciously tonal...
Originally Posted by aggle-rithm View Post
Wait...wouldn't you need a microtonal piano for that?
Both my answers are about tech improvements.

69Dodge fixed an old bug in a program I use. That made it possible to find more tonal arrays. I use it all the time now.

I use a piano plug-in in Logic called PianoTeq. Physical modeling turns out to be much, much better than trying to sample a piano. They even model the sound of the strings resonating when you pick up the dampers with the sustain pedal. I'd recommend PianoTeq, and they've even been good to deal with. I like.

Using Lil' Miss Scale Oven, I can design a tuning, creating a file in Scala format. PianoTeq will read that file and instantly tune to whatever I specify.

So, what would have taken days -- back in the day -- now takes minutes or seconds.

There are ways that improving tech makes life better.

I once asked my piano tuner if it would hurt a piano to tune it to something other than 12 notes per octave. She was unfazed. She didn't seem to think it would be a big deal, although the piano would need some time to adjust. But it's not worth the effort.
__________________
Life sucks, and then you die

( Sung to the tune of the old Time jingle: "Time flies, and you are there!" )

Last edited by calebprime; 14th July 2013 at 10:15 AM.
calebprime is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2013, 12:04 PM   #116
MinnesotaBrant
Illuminator
 
MinnesotaBrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,435
First one was kinda relaxing. let me try another.
MinnesotaBrant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2013, 01:58 PM   #117
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,435
Originally Posted by aggle-rithm View Post
Sounds suspiciously tonal...
Originally Posted by calebprime View Post
...
... That made it possible to find more tonal arrays. ...
https://app.box.com/s/7ow5sps9r788bn1e8pgh

Speaking of "tonal" arrays that are 12-tone, but very slow, here's a nearly 10-minute background that stands on its own, almost. Sounds like something Mahler might have written after he was already dead and moldering in his grave.

It starts with:


D#.D..G#.F#.A..C#.C..E..G..F..B..A#
F..A..C..A#.E..D#.G#.G..C#.B..D..F#
A..D#.D..G..F#.C..A#.C#.F..E..G#.B
F#.F..A..C..A#.E..D#.G#.G..C#.B..D


which takes about 4 1/2 minutes, then hits a low B, and goes to:

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


Ending pretty clearly with that G# triad over E, with an added D-B-G# in the bass.

I'm thinking of it as a nice dark landscape that I'll mar with all kinds of human developments -- oil pipelines, shopping malls, condos, resorts, and a sewage treatment plant next to the rec center.

Or, more literally: I'm going to chop it up a little, process using Alchemy, plus filtering and sampling; then compose more active stuff on top of it.

But it's a good idea to document a nice background before I ruin it.
__________________
Life sucks, and then you die

( Sung to the tune of the old Time jingle: "Time flies, and you are there!" )

Last edited by calebprime; 28th July 2013 at 02:01 PM.
calebprime is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2013, 06:13 AM   #118
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,435
Originally Posted by calebprime View Post
https://app.box.com/s/7ow5sps9r788bn1e8pgh

... I'm going to chop it up a little, process using Alchemy, plus filtering and sampling; then compose more active stuff on top of it.
https://app.box.com/s/4ija4q8ywejjwzyexbdv

Electronic effects here are like instrumentation or orchestration -- a layer of color-change or clothing, so to speak. They're more than gimmickry -- unless they're bad -- and less than the fundamental stuff, which is harmony. Because the filters sweep through the overtones of the pitches, they emphasize some and de-emphasize others, and introduce motion sometimes.

I'm using the evoc20 Filterbank that comes with Logic. You can twiddle the controls in real time, then automate those changes using the "Latch" setting. With that kind of control, you have the potential to do very musical time-variant effects. It's a lot better than just adding a constant flanger to the mix. Changing some controls causes clicks, which I then had to remove using iZotope Rx. (Which works surprisingly well.)

After that was done, the resulting tracks were tweaked for better stereo using Audacity, then assigned to the standard Logic sampler, with the mod-wheel controlling cross-fade between the original (no effects) tracks and the new (filtered) tracks, so I could bring the filtering effect in and out as desired.

Next: Put some more holes in the texture and do the same sort of process using the effects available with the Alchemy plug-in, for more relief of the overall thickness and for a more artificial, disturbingly synthetic effect in spots. The background will then move between original, filtered, and "artificial".
__________________
Life sucks, and then you die

( Sung to the tune of the old Time jingle: "Time flies, and you are there!" )

Last edited by calebprime; 2nd August 2013 at 06:25 AM.
calebprime is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 09:15 AM   #119
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,435
I just put this "best of" list together for a friend. Links to many of the better pieces in one post for convenience.


(from: Sketch Tests 2012-2013)

Opening the Window
https://app.box.com/s/48wc435slumb9ano9cc9

Chords with Figuration
https://app.box.com/s/daf63fb69db30e7d2cb0

Motors and some Wiffling
https://app.box.com/s/voon6xnmu56lufnlevl7

M13 with Train
https://app.box.com/s/ogrh2vtu3wdrapkgxnoa

Self-Sim Study in E Mixolydian
https://app.box.com/s/g6313n63yhhl0cbubdtt

My Doctor Says Caffeine
https://app.box.com/s/6anfk84q5x37nkzdxr9w

Starting and Stopping
https://app.box.com/s/9pst9o65y6nx67w6lj3u

Fugazzi
https://app.box.com/s/au4esop559vae2353i4n

Elusive Mr. Moy
https://app.box.com/s/0ac8fd057b0c8e44c66a

BEADS (lighten up, Dave)
https://app.box.com/s/10s67yjq1sam01o49gc4


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(from: You're Not There )

#1 --
https://app.box.com/s/j9l6i4crj879so3osy6n

#2 --
https://app.box.com/s/chtzh22eubqd4qug3sx3

#3 --
https://app.box.com/s/4ydcshb2ltwv9san0j3d

#4 --
https://app.box.com/s/at7297ejlobphgpexsm6

#8 --
https://app.box.com/s/gi33uqpfmx1476hul47s

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(from: Sidewalks of Brookline)
entire folder: https://app.box.com/shared/i7q3vilbs6


Brookline Window1
https://app.box.com/s/1samexc1ytrlivn2uq9o

Swing Low Stretch
https://app.box.com/s/rmfvfue3ehy3rd5mxrh0

Brighton 10
https://app.box.com/s/ktcxgt617iv94dbmv6yy

Only The Searing Incomprehensible
https://app.box.com/s/pbw2co34gcdagvt0easj


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(from: Five Sample-Based Pieces)
entire folder: https://app.box.com/shared/vdrhregp02

The Aswang
https://app.box.com/s/2dtjt9ue9jmzfhqwnykn

Wife and Garden
https://app.box.com/s/11ibkzjq0c6uh5xpbfvi


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(from: Four Pieces)
entire folder: https://app.box.com/shared/xoxukz8nl6

Clay's Way
https://app.box.com/s/q9dknyphurezkxy7z5bj

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(from: Kerry)
entire folder: https://app.box.com/s/8fysckw1ba9z9z0a02nv

Family Resemblance 6.309
https://app.box.com/s/8fysckw1ba9z9z0a02nv

Kerry's Rembrandt
https://app.box.com/s/4ivws6nm90o0r1hw7jvl

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(from: Scoring)
entire folder: https://app.box.com/shared/2zx3b3v383


Lovers Slo-Mo
https://app.box.com/s/qmw1mlyatu0azpi3ptbw

Mechanized Farming
https://app.box.com/s/58ev692eplwu3sqz3ki8

SAF credits 2
https://app.box.com/s/v7usraveqmzwkm2ni929

Whitehead (no tune is better)
https://app.box.com/s/jm28gskeq63gjmplalts

Onward, Baked Freaks
https://app.box.com/s/yzokv8o7i7bwhtdu10uj



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
__________________
Life sucks, and then you die

( Sung to the tune of the old Time jingle: "Time flies, and you are there!" )
calebprime is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2013, 08:23 PM   #120
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,435
https://app.box.com/s/2i418x7kpiew4d3467io

New piece, approximately 9 minutes.

called Pianos and Regrets.

In two parts: First, a muddy Ivesian collage of my father, in his old age, playing some bits from favorite piano pieces, plus electronic background. His piano is processed through the Alchemy plug-in. This gives the Bach first prelude a steel-drum-like timbre, heard a couple minutes in.

Second, another piano piece I wrote is stretched out and distressed a little, and played against the bell-like overtones of a low C#.

Two kinds of sadness through the buzz and haze.

I like the sound of tuning clashes between 12-tone equal temperament and the natural harmonic series.

It's surprising how consonant a chord like C#0-D#2-F4-D5 sounds, even after many years of thinking about such chords.
__________________
Life sucks, and then you die

( Sung to the tune of the old Time jingle: "Time flies, and you are there!" )
calebprime is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:15 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.