source file: mills3.txt Date: Thursday, January 08, 1998 2:03 AM Subject: TUNING digest 1293 From: tuning@eartha.mills.edu > TUNING Digest 1293 > >Topics covered in this issue include: > > 1) Microtonal instruments > by Denis.Atadan@mvs.udel.edu > 2) Re: Hexany article, etc. > by Paul Rapoport > 3) blues scale > by "Paul H. Erlich" > 4) How to order the Bosanquet book from Diapason Press > by "J. Pusey" > 5) Tuning-List CD > by mr88cet@texas.net (Gary Morrison) > 6) Special Way > by Carl Lumma > 7) Re: MIDI/Audio wish list > by "jloffink" > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Topic No. 1 > >Date: Wed, 7 Jan 98 14:45 EST >From: Denis.Atadan@mvs.udel.edu >To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu >Subject: Microtonal instruments >Message-ID: <199801071948.OAA15581@copland.udel.edu> > >It's been pretty interesting to see who plays what so here's my 2 cents- > >I've got an electric guitar and bass both with warmouth necks in 19tet. They >were both fenders- a Stratocaster and a Precision bass. Todd keehn of Denver >Colorado did the work. Todd does excellent work, unfortunately, last I heard >was carpal tunnel syndrome had slow his luthiership down to a crawl. In any >case, the Strat sounds nothing like a classic Strat now. It got more sustain >and timbrally it's much more monochromatic and doesn't have that twang fenders >have. The P-bass still sounds and plays like a p-bass. I've lent these >instruments to a number of excellent musicians and they really like them, >also. The necks also were made with a flat radius. > >I've also got a great double neck Gibson Lee steel guitar form the early 60's >(I think from the early 60's) It has an amazingly warm sound. I run it through >a Hughes and Kettner Triamp into an old Rodgers tone cabinet (from the 50's I >think). The sound is so rich. I've got that thing usually tuned to and open >19tet tuning. > >On the synth side of things I've got a Kurzweil K2000 with a sampler. That's >also usually tuned to 19tet. It's a great synth but after playing around with >it for a couple of years I've got to say that digitally produced synth music >leaves me at best luke warm. Even guys that are really excellent with them >like Brian Eno and the Orb or Tricky don't produce music with them that I can >really totally get into. And this is not a criticism of them at all it's >a criticism of the instruments. It's a shame that we don't have acoustic >instruments or electro acoustic instruments available to us more readily and >ones that are readily playable. In my opinion so much of music has nothing to >do with the tuning and has to do with the feel the musician puts behind the >notes. Compare the sound of a great digital synth to a Hammond B-3 or a >Wurlitzer electric piano and it's dissapointing. The Hammond or Wurlitzer >tends to evince musical phrases and nuance but with the Kurzweil I always have >felt like I'm sitting behind a glass pane watching music arise in the next >room. This, of course, is only my experience. > >I've got bunch of other 12tet instruments but that's for another time. > > >Denis > >------------------------------ > >Topic No. 2 > >Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 15:07:06 -0500 (EST) >From: Paul Rapoport >To: Carl Lumma >Subject: Re: Hexany article, etc. >Message-ID: > >I was afraid someone would ask what Musicworks 60 is, and I'd have to >explain. But no problem, really. No. 60 is simply issue no. 60. Musicworks >is a long-established, internationally known avant-garde music magazine >published at > >179 Richmond Street West >Toronto Ontario Canada M5V 1V3 > >ph. 416 977 3546 >fax 416 204 1084 > >http://www.web.net/sound/ >e-mail: sound@musicworks.web.net > >They're up to almost no. 70 by now. Each issue comes with a CD. I'm >quite fond of this production and have almost all the issues going back >many years. It occasionally deals with tuning matters. > >Musicworks 60 has the article of mine about the stellated hexany. The >accompanying CD has a 4-minute piece in that tuning for soprano, choir, >and synthesizer, plus many other pieces not by me and not microtonal. > >Musicworks 61 has an article of mine about 25-note ET. The accompanying CD >for that has a short piece in that tuning for guitar sound, plus other >things etc. > >Prices: > >Musicworks 60 $ 5 >Musicworks 60 CD $10 > >Musicworks 61 $ 5 >Musicworks 61 CD $10 > >Add $2 for mailing regardless of what you order. All above prices are >U.S.$. The prices are different to Canadian addresses. > >Hope this is of some interest. > >========================== >Dr. Paul Rapoport >SADM (Music) >McMaster University > >------------------------------ > >Topic No. 3 > >Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 18:22:29 -0500 >From: "Paul H. Erlich" >To: "'tuning@eartha.mills.edu'" >Subject: blues scale >Message-ID: > >On that guitar, I seem to be drawn to the following inversionally >symmetrical scale for blues: > >22TET cents > >0 0 >6 327 >9 491 >10 545 >13 709 >19 1036 > >Harmonically, it looks like this: > > >9---------0---------13 > \ / \ > \ / \ > \ / \ > \ / \ > 6---------19--------10 > >In just intonation, it would be > >Ratio cents > >1/1 0 >6/5 316 >4/3 498 >27/20 520 >3/2 702 >9/5 1018 > >but that syntonic comma between 4/3 and 27/20 is too small to function >as a real melodic interval in a blues context. The 22TET degree is big >enough to evoke a distinct pitch, but small enough to sound >interestingly unusual. The 6/5 and 9/5 are not really that "bluesy" >sounding; their sharpened versions in 22TET do better, especially with >vibrato added. > >"Blue notes" on the guitar are almost always between major and minor >thirds and between major and minor sevenths. I don't agree with those >who make them out to be some sort of septimal ratios, though the 7/4 is >common in harmonica blues, and I myself love to use the 7/6 over the IV >chord (on the 12-tone guitar by bending the major 2nd up a third-tone). > >I think the blues scale has more to do with 7TET than with any just >ratios. > >------------------------------ > >Topic No. 4 > >Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 20:26:45 -0500 >From: "J. Pusey" >To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu >Subject: How to order the Bosanquet book from Diapason Press >Message-ID: > >Orders for Diapason Press books are currently limited to snail-mail. >Send your request to: > > The Diapason Press > P.O. Box 2376 > 3500 GJ Utrecht > The Netherlands > >Foreign payments can be made to Dutch postal checking account 532614, or >by sending a Eurocheque. American customers can pay with personal >checks drawn on American banks in U.S. dollars made out to Rudolf A. >Rasch. The exchange rate is US$ 1 = HFL 2. > >The order number for the Bosanquet book is TTL 4. >The price is HFL 60 = US$ 30. > >John > >--- >John G. Pusey xen@tiac.net http://www.tiac.net/users/xen/jgp/ > >------------------------------ > >Topic No. 5 > >Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 21:27:09 -0600 (CST) >From: mr88cet@texas.net (Gary Morrison) >To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu >Subject: Tuning-List CD >Message-ID: > > Well, I've plopped down my investment in Neil's proposed Tuning-List CD! >I'd like to encourage others of you. > > One of the other investors mentioned something I hadn't thought of: >Since contributors get about 100 CDs each (assuming that 10 people >contribute), it probably won't be difficult to recoup that $200 investment. >Even if you sell them at the bargain-basement price of $5 you'd only have >to sell 40 of them. > >------------------------------ > >Topic No. 6 > >Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 23:20:15 -0500 >From: Carl Lumma >To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu >Subject: Special Way >Message-ID: <3.0.32.19980107231843.007ca100@nni.com> > >Paul Erlich wrote... > >>The 7-limit harmony in barbershop is not merely "stuck on" to the >>diatonic scale; it consists of dominant seventh chords which are >diatonic >in function and origin, and the 27-cent adjustments required >to achieve JI >are not large enough to disturb the essential >diatonicity of the music. > >You're nitpicking what I meant by "Stuck on"? > >>As for the pitch sets being different for melody and harmony, don't >tell >me that the sevenths of these dominant seventh chords never occur >in the >melody! > >They do, but not often. If the lead is singing the 7, then usually the >tenor has the melody. There are many songs where the melody contains no >pitches outside the 3-limit. What is important is that the melody is not >really part of the voice leading in the traditional sense, except in the >case of sustained notes. Chords are built _on_ it. What follows in this >post may help to clear the issue up. > >>>}I think that most people recognize that barbershop harmonies sound >>>better than piano harmonies. If you can hear the difference, doesn't >>>that make it a "perceptually distinct pitch set"? Maybe I'm just >>>splitting hairs... >>> >>I think that many people will hear the difference but not know whether >>any particular pitch is being adjusted upwards or downwards -- they >will >simply detect a difference analagous to a change in timbral >quality on the >chordal level. An adjustment large enough to evoke a >non-diatonic pitch (I >mean diatonic in the sense of several closely >related heptatonic keys), >however well-motivated harmonically, will >have a different effect, >probably not one that most people would find >pleasant. > >I usually use "pitch set" to mean "all the pitches you need to play the >thing". Mr. Erlich's "pitch set", as used above, is something very >different. If I am not mistaken, he uses the term "pitch set" above to >touch on a model that describes a certain aspect of music: Where harmony >and melody interact in a Special Way. > >What is this Special Way? Krumhansl, quoted by Mr. Erlich, seems to be >touching on it: "If chord construction is determined in some principled way >by scale structure, then this further serves to maintain the tonal >framework for encoding pitch information." > >Most western classical music happens to work in this Special Way, and the >thing it uses to do it is the diatonic scale. Mr. Erlich's goal, if I'm >not mistaken, is to find a new scale suitable for use in this Special Way. > >To recap so far, I am using "Special Way" to mean a way of explaining >beauty in music from how melody and harmony are related, a construct >heretobefore unknown to music theory, at least at the level Mr. Erlich >takes it. In his paper, it is called "Generalizing diatonicity". I >suggest this is an unfortunate term, as it implies the diatonic scale, >which is exactly what he wants to replace, kind of how "octave" isn't a >good way to say "2/1", since it implies 12-tone... > >>I think Schonberg may have been right that diatonicism had been played >>out, but in abandoning the concepts of tonality and scale he threw the >>baby out with the bathwater. > >..Here, Mr. Erlich uses the words "tonality and scale" to mean Special >Way. His post then translates: "I think Schonberg may have been right that >the diatonic scale has been exhausted as a tool for making music in the >Special Way, but he threw out the Special Way, which wasn't what was used up." > >Now follows a review of his paper, which hopes, it seems, to show just how >the Special Way isn't used up, and just how you can tune an instrument >that'll make the Special Way seem as new as 1998. > >--------------------------------------------------------------- > >The author starts by observing that the Western Music is 5-limit, and, >following the "music evolves up the harmonic series" thing, sets his sights >on the 7-limit. > >He then defines a set of scales as candidates for representing the 7-limit. > These scales are assumed to be root of 2 equal-step tunings, with only one >pitch per 7-limit approximation. > >The one pitch per approximation thing is necessary for the Special Way to >work, as far as I can tell. I can't quite tell you how, but I have a gut >feeling it is, and since the Special Way is what we're after, I won't argue >it. Besides, it keeps the size of the pitch set manageable. > >The root of 2 part is understandable, considering that we need strong low >identies for our 7's to work. This seems contradictory to the rule that >the higher identities are more sensitive to mistuning, since there are more >low-numbered fractions near them. Indeed it is, and perhaps it is a >counterbalance to this principle. The paper offers only that "octave >equivalence seems pervasive" and that it is "universally perceived, even by >some animals". > >The matter of mistuning is far from clear, even touching back on our old >bone about unknowingly passing low-numbered ratios when measuring cent >detuning of an interval. Paul's paper addresses this by making the >standard deviation in log-frequency detuning inversely proportional to the >limit of the interval. Not ideal, but better than any other method I've >been able to think of, and good enough for root of 2 equal tunings from 12 >to 31. > >The equal-step part is the most dubious. The Special Way has always been >based on temperament of some kind, and it seems that only Bog or God can >decide if all those schkissmas need to disappear for it to work, insomuch >as Mr. Erlich has never shown it. He has mentioned, on this digest, some >modulatory effects that require two D's to be the same note, etc, but this >is a problem of trying to retune music already written. That Special Way >music cannot be written for JI, complete with its own list of modulatory >effects impossible in a temperament, has not been demonstrated. > >So the list of scales comes down to 22, 26, 27, and 31 tone equal temperament. > >Then are listed criteria for determining a scale's usefulness for the >Special Way. Since the Special Way is a relationship between a scale's >melodic and harmonic usefulness, the criteria are separated in these two >groups... > >1. Melodic. In Paul's paper we have maximal evenness and tetrachordality. >In Gibson-land, we have the melodic limen. Jules Siegel proposed that the >intervals should get smaller as you go up the scale. None of these >convince me in the least even that a scale can "work" melodically. Maybe >the most useful thing I've heard for describing the melodic properties of a >scale is "symmetry". I will accept, however, that the criteria used by Mr. >Erlich are, "enough to ensure an intelligible melodic framework". > >2. Harmonic. Now we're talking. This is where the real relations between >melodic and harmonic are drawn... > (a)"There exists a pattern of intervals" ... "which produces a complete, >consonant chord on most scale degrees" > (b)"The majority of consonant chords have a root that lies" the best >approximation of a 3/2 "away from another consonant chord" > (c)"A chord progression of no more than three consonant chords is >required to cover the entire scale" > >..in what would be letter "d", Mr. Erlich makes use of a term I do not >understand: "characteristic dissonance". He defines it to be any dissonant >interval that shares the same number of scale steps as a consonant >interval. Shadings of dissonance aside, what kind of scale steps we >talkin'? The example of the diminished 5th is given, but why it should be >considered a type of 5th, or why the P5 should not be considered a 7th is >not made clear. > > (e)The rarest intervals in the scale should be located next to notes in >the tonic chord. Like leading tones. > >What would be "f" makes use again of the term "characteristic dissonance". > >The number of scales fitting these criteria is shown to be few. Among them >are the 5-limit diatonic and the 3-limit pentatonic, two scales proven over >hundreds of years to be great for the Special Way. While this shouldn't >come as much of a surprise, considering the author admits to basing his >criteria on the success of these scales, any time such a unique set of >properties can be found, they're probably worth looking into. > >Finally, it is shown that the decatonic scale in 22TET fits the criteria well. > >So has the paper provided a good definition of the Special Way? Yes. Has >it succeeded in convincing me that the Special Way is still good, and that >the 22TET decatonic scale is a fresh vehicle for it? Without a doubt. >What it hasn't provided is a name for the Special Way. Maybe "tonality" is >best, but I didn't use it because it has so many other meanings. > >------------------------------------------------------------------ > >That's the review, and I would like to thank Mr. Erlich in advance for >letting me quote his paper. All material from the paper is in quotes, >exactly as it appeared on John Starrett's web site. All spelling mistakes >are probably mine. I encourage the reader to get the paper for himself, as >it is well-written and highly self-explanatory (you wouldn't know it :~) > >So, to wrap up: Is Barbershop music that uses the Special Way? If so, what >is the vehicle? Diatonic, decatonic, or maybe JI complete with, as I say, >"modulatory effects impossible in temperament?" > >I say that Barbershop lies on the fence between using the Special Way and >not. In a pinch, I'd say it does use it. If it does, it's diatonic, for >sure. It is *not* my JI Special Way. > >Now comes the last issue. Every time I make it, Mr. Erlich accuses me of >not having understood his paper. I hope that the above review will at >least make it plain what I do and don't understand. > >Is the Special Way the only way to make interesting music? No. Is there >another way already demonstrated? Yes. I gave Barbershop and an excerpt >of the YES tune "Sound Chaser" as examples of melody and chords coming from >different pitch sets, as this is the most obvious way to rule out any >Special Way effects. But the Barbershop example really doesn't satisfy, as >we've seen, and the YES example is brief. > >Serialism is certainly devoid of the Special Way -- and no doubt there is >good serialism to be done -- but it is also lacks consonance. > >Far out avant garde music is certainly lacking of Special Way, if not other >things. > >Indian chamber music and Bagpipe music are good examples, but they stay >inside one tonality, the fundamental of which is played on a drone. I love >them both, and they are extremely consonant, but this is not going to >satisfy hardcore Special Way fans. > >What's needed is an example positively guaranteed to Curl Your Toenails.... > >Arthur Honegger > Prelude, Arioso, and Fughette on the name BACH > >Especially the fugue. It uses the entire 12-tone equal-tempered space. >Yet it is tonal. But it is not diatonic. There are lots more. The >Intrada for trumpet and piano. Othmar Schoek's Zwei Klavierstucke. Some >Prokofiev. > >Despite his insistence on his theories, Mr. Erlich says it best... > >"What would be most useful in music today to the composer, to the >performer, and to the music theorizer? Answer: If we could bring it about, >that the diatonic scale be "spurlos versenkt" and that, instead of busying >himself with absorbing 'a' scale (that is, "the" diatonic scale of the >past), the music pupil devote his time to _the invention of scales_ ..." > >I encourage the invention not only of scales of all types for use with the >Special Way, but scales of all types for all uses. If only every inventor >of scales could present so functional an explanation for their use as Paul. > >>The 12-tone system forced the serious, innovative composers into an >>increasingly academic corner as the vast majority of music lovers >>gravitated toward recyclings of older ideas that their ears could >still >digest. The 20th century was an amazing century for Western >music >primarily due to the incorporation of non-Western influences. >Perhaps the >21st will see a breaking down of the 12-tone barrier and a >flood of new >tonal ideas. > >May it be so. > >Carl > >------------------------------ > >Topic No. 7 > >Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 00:09:46 -0600 >From: "jloffink" >To: >Subject: Re: MIDI/Audio wish list > >> As an Appendix to the discussion paper I had the idea of including a >> list of features/improvements that would specifically benefit >> composers and others who use MIDI and digital audio for alternative >> tunings. >> >> Anyhow, the gist of all this is : my wish list would include things >> like : >> >> Tuning resolution minimum 1 cent, preferably less (any thoughts on >> this?); Number of Partials (Keygroups, Zones) limited by memory only, >> not hard coded into the architecture; Include on-board absolute pitch >> meter (but would put the price up); Macro and template procedures for >> building unconventional `instruments'; >> >Tuning resolution of sample/wavetable based instruments better than 1 cent >is questionable since no manufacturer will tune their own samples to better >accuracy than this. This is the issue much more than cost, since adding >the extra resolution in their custom ICs would be insignificant in terms of >design resources and transistors. DSP or Virtual Modeling type instruments >could do better though. > >You have to remember that manufacturers need to make a profit in order to >stay in business, and most provide the bare minimum of features that they >can get away with. For instance, MIDI pitch bend has supported 14 bit >resolution for 15 years now, but nobody makes a 14 bit pitch bend >controller except Big Briar, 98% of them are 8 bit, the other 2% are 10 >bit. > >Building tunings into "Partials", Keygroups or Zones is tedious and >wasteful effort in my opinion. Today's synthesizers support hundreds of >patches/programs, doing it that way virtually hard codes the tuning into >the sample set and increases your memory requirements exponentially. I >don't think there's much question that most users prefer separate tuning >tables, the issues are: > >Do you want octave based tables? >Do you want keyboard based tables? (Remember, these are virtually >impossible to retune note by note on the fly, ala Justonic Pitch Palette, >because of the limited MIDI bandwidth) >How many tables do you need? >Are the tables assigned globally or per MIDI channel? >Do you need to switch between tables or notes in realtime, and if so should >notes be updated immediately or on new notes only? >Is the MIDI Tuning Dump Standard supported? > >Also, I believe any proposal to manufacturers must be presented in a >prioritized fashion. If given as an all or nothing situation, you're most >likely to get nothing, or else get a confused subset of the requested >features. > >The on-board absolute pitch meter is a very, very interesting idea, >especially for a sampler. It would be a benefit for anyone creating their >own samples. > >> A kind of `kit' mother keyboard with a large number of movable slots >> into which a user configurable number and arrangement of keys of >> different sizes and colours could be fitted_ And new types of control >> for keys (taking the idea of `after touch' further_) >> >Starr Labs is working on a generalized microtonal MIDI keyboard that >supports polyphonic aftertouch. > >------------------------------ > >End of TUNING Digest 1293 >************************* > SMTPOriginator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu From: "Fred Kohler" Subject: Re: TUNING digest 1293 PostedDate: 09-01-98 17:37:37 SendTo: CN=coul1358/OU=AT/O=EZH ReplyTo: tuning@eartha.mills.edu $MessageStorage: 0 $UpdatedBy: CN=notesrv2/OU=Server/O=EZH,CN=coul1358/OU=AT/O=EZH,CN=Manuel op de Coul/OU=AT/O=EZH RouteServers: CN=notesrv2/OU=Server/O=EZH,CN=notesrv1/OU=Server/O=EZH RouteTimes: 09-01-98 17:37:15-09-01-98 17:37:15,09-01-98 17:37:08-09-01-98 17:37:08 DeliveredDate: 09-01-98 17:37:08 Categories: $Revisions: Received: from ns.ezh.nl ([137.174.112.59]) by notesrv2.ezh.nl (Lotus SMTP MTA SMTP v4.6 (462.2 9-3-1997)) with SMTP id C1256587.005B4822; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 17:37:31 +0100 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA14195; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 17:37:37 +0100 Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 17:37:37 +0100 Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA14260 Received: (qmail 27484 invoked from network); 9 Jan 1998 08:36:56 -0800 Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 9 Jan 1998 08:36:56 -0800 Message-Id: <001201bd1d1c$89c1a120$b71dc2cf@a1a05977> Errors-To: madole@mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu