Topic: Miracle of Transformation
1 scales
| File | Description | Notes | Period (ยข) |
|---|---|---|---|
| blackjack | Paul Erlich, Tuning list ~5-May-2001, 7/72 octave generator | 21 | 1200.0 |
Thread (30 messages)
From: ligonj@northstate.net (2001-05-10) Subject: Miracle of Transformation Hello Dear Friends! Have all of you been noticing, like I have, how our beloved Tuning List has been undergoing a Miracle of Transformation? I touches me in deepest part of heart and soul, to see the continuing growth toward openness to all, and the sharing spirit. Even now, in coincidence with the coming of spring, we see the flowers of the sharing spirit, burst forth with bright colors; bringing a rare sense of community between our brothers and sisters here. We all can indeed enjoy the festive ride on the ferry-boat, to the yonder shore of musical bliss - theorists, musicians, numerologists and composers alike. The rudder of Love provides a steady course toward our mutual goals. May we stay on this noble path of heart! With Love, Jacky Ligon
From: Kraig Grady (2001-05-10)
Subject: Re: [tuning] Miracle of Transformation
ligonj@northstate.net wrote:
> Hello Dear Friends!
>
> Have all of you been noticing, like I have, how our beloved Tuning
> List has been undergoing a Miracle of Transformation?
I think we are in phase where less people are posting. Those that are, share the same assumptions.
Sometimes i look at some of these post and read them like i just joined the list.
All i can think is that the language has moved so far away from the language of music that it is
absurd. They have turned this language into being the property of Mathematics exclusively. When
pointed out that the same things and ideas can be done in a much more organically and musical
friendly way. it is ignored. This transformation is nothing but a narrowing.
-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm
From: ligonj@northstate.net (2001-05-10) Subject: Re: Miracle of Transformation > ligonj@n... wrote: > > > Hello Dear Friends! > > > > Have all of you been noticing, like I have, how our beloved Tuning > > List has been undergoing a Miracle of Transformation? --- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote: > > I think we are in phase where less people are posting. Those that are, share the same assumptions. > > Sometimes i look at some of these post and read them like i just joined the list. > All i can think is that the language has moved so far away from the language of music that it is > absurd. They have turned this language into being the property of Mathematics exclusively. When > pointed out that the same things and ideas can be done in a much more organically and musical > friendly way. it is ignored. This transformation is nothing but a narrowing. Kraig, I agree with your point here, and as simple minded as it may sound coming from me, and from my totally music-centric point of view, all I can say is that it can be made simpler for musicians, by just doing something as easy as posting in a list of cents for a scale, or the scale degrees from 72, to help folks like me get going with the music. I think there are many among us who feel the same way, and would get allot more out of all the pure theoretical work if these simple and inclusive things were considered more often. Exclusion of these simple things are what keeps folks in the background. Now when I see someone of noble heart, like Dave Keenan say: "But so far it's only theory. We could use some more collaboration from composers or performers. We need some music that could only be played in this tuning, either the 31-tone or preferably the 21-tone. Even if it is only a medly of existing pieces showing off its neutral scales, hexanies, dekanies, quasi-JI majors and minors etc, subsets which have probably never before appeared together in so few notes to such great accuracy." I know we are on the right track. (I should note that Dave has guided me toward the use of these subsets already too!) As a result of this, and Paul being kind enough to post the cents values for the 21 Tone Miracle scale, I have been able to tune up my synth, and try it out. And indeed what a lovely scale it is. The important thing here, is that I learn 1000 times more about theoretical work when I can immediately hear the scales in a musical setting. Don't care much about lattice and ratio space - can't hear it. But I would like to humbly request that there be more of this in an effort to increase participation from the lurking masses - all 450 of them. We must think of these things, when we come from the theory perspective, in order to get musicians involved, otherwise we may be confounded by what we can't hear. It is an invitation to mutual sharing between what may sometimes seem to be perspectives of polar opposites. Our needs are mutual - the need to *hear* beauty. Thanks, Jacky Ligon
From: jpehrson@rcn.com (2001-05-10) Subject: Re: Miracle of Transformation --- In tuning@y..., ligonj@n... wrote: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/message/22411 > Kraig, > > I agree with your point here, and as simple minded as it may sound > coming from me, and from my totally music-centric point of view, all I can say is that it can be made simpler for musicians, by just doing something as easy as posting in a list of cents for a scale, or the scale degrees from 72, to help folks like me get going with the > music. But, I ask for cents for me pocket, and me bros post it right away!? ___________ ______ _____ ___ Joseph Pehrson
From: David C Keenan (2001-05-11) Subject: Re: Miracle of Transformation Yes, some of us tend to get a bit carried away with mathematical language. But when the dust settles you'll find we're only too happy to try to make it accessible to non mathematical musicians. Just ask. I'm not sure if anyone's posted a Scala file for Blackjack itself yet. Humble apologies if not. Here it is just in case, as an attachment, as well as being available for cut and paste below. Graham, you should maybe add comments to your 24 tone scala file, or otherwise explain, which pitches do not belong to a Blackjack scale centred on 1/1. ! ! blackjack.scl ! Paul Erlich, Tuning list ~5-May-2001, 7/72 octave generator 21 ! 33.3333333 116.6666667 150.0 233.3333333 266.6666667 350.0 383.3333333 466.6666667 500.0 583.3333333 616.6666667 700.0 733.3333333 816.6666667 850.0 933.3333333 966.6666667 1050.0 1083.333333 1166.666667 2/1 Regards,
From: David J. Finnamore (2001-05-11) Subject: Re: Miracle of Transformation Joseph Pehrson wrote (a whole lot of good music, and also this): > But, I ask for cents for me pocket, and me bros post it right away!? ASCII and ye shall receive. -- David J. Finnamore Nashville, TN, USA http://personal.bna.bellsouth.net/bna/d/f/dfin/index.html --
From: graham@microtonal.co.uk (2001-05-11)
Subject: Re: Miracle of Transformation
Dave Keenan wrote:
> Graham, you should maybe add comments to your 24 tone scala file, or
> otherwise explain, which pitches do not belong to a Blackjack scale
> centred on 1/1.
The Scala file isn't likely to leave my hard drive again. For an
explanation, Blackjack in the high tuning is everything except 2v, 5v and
7v, which will be F, C and another F but not the other C. For the low
tuning, everything except 1^, 4^ and 6^ which will be E, B and the other
E.
Sometime we need to collect all this stuff together, either on the web or
in print. Has the dust cleared enough for that yet? I seem to be
explaining old ideas instead of having new ones, so it would be best to do
the job properly.
I've added <http://www.microtonal.co.uk/decimal_notation.htm> to my
website. So I've covered most of what I wanted to say. I could try
notating more of the scales you found, and also write up those other
11-limit MOS scales.
Graham
From: Dave Keenan (2001-05-12) Subject: Re: Miracle of Transformation --- In tuning@y..., graham@m... wrote: > Sometime we need to collect all this stuff together, either on the web or > in print. Has the dust cleared enough for that yet? I seem to be > explaining old ideas instead of having new ones, so it would be best to do > the job properly. I'm sure everyone would be grateful for any collecting you can do. I'm too busy with other committments at the moment. > I've added <http://www.microtonal.co.uk/decimal_notation.htm> to my > website. So I've covered most of what I wanted to say. I could try > notating more of the scales you found, and also write up those other > 11-limit MOS scales My priority at the moment is to make Blackjack accessible to non-math musicians and describe its harmonic and melodic resources in a way that they can use. So showing the patterns that various chords make on a keyboard or guitar would be useful. But Graham, I'm sure that whatever you feel moved to elucidate will prove useful eventually. -- Dave Keenan
From: monz (2001-05-12) Subject: Re: Miracle of Transformation --- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/message/22506 > I'm sure everyone would be grateful for any collecting you > [Graham] can do. I'm too busy with other committments at > the moment. I've already been mulling over an opening for a paper on this, but I'm pretty busy too. Maybe I can put together something sketchy and post it here for further revision. > My priority at the moment is to make Blackjack accessible to > non-math musicians and describe its harmonic and melodic > resources in a way that they can use. So showing the patterns > that various chords make on a keyboard or guitar would be > useful. Here's a start on this from me: The following mapping is the one for the Ztar which I give in the Dictionary, but it also shows the Blackjack scale in orange. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/files/monz/72edo-bj-ztar.jpg Since the Blackjack scale's generator is 7 steps of 72-EDO, it's pattern is offset by 1 in each column (because the columns have 6 rows). The following mapping uses 7 rows of the Zboard, to even out the appearance of the pitches in the Blackjack scale. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/files/monz/7row-bj-zbd.jpg The disadvantage of this is that it would not make full or consistent use of the available keys on the Zboard. (Of course, if Harvey could build one with 14 rows, or a Ztar with 7 rows...) I've tried illustrating the tetrads in Paul's lattice on this keyboard mapping by using different colors, but overlapping membership of individual pitches in multiple tetrads has confounded my efforts. Paul, help! (BTW, nice informative colors added to the Interval Matrix I made! Thanks!) -monz http://www.monz.org "All roads lead to n^0"
From: PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM (2001-05-12) Subject: Re: Miracle of Transformation --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote: > > The following mapping uses 7 rows of the Zboard, to even out > the appearance of the pitches in the Blackjack scale. > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/files/monz/7row-bj-zbd.jpg > > The disadvantage of this is that it would not make full or > consistent use of the available keys on the Zboard. (Of course, > if Harvey could build one with 14 rows, or a Ztar with 7 rows...) > Slant this a little, and it corresponds to Graham's proposal . . . > > I've tried illustrating the tetrads in Paul's lattice on this > keyboard mapping by using different colors, but overlapping > membership of individual pitches in multiple tetrads has > confounded my efforts. Paul, help! How would you illustrate the triads of the diatonic scale on the white keys of the standard keyboard (always start with something simple)? How about -- one color for each consonant chord, and then each key gets multiple colors? > > (BTW, nice informative colors added to the Interval Matrix > I made! Thanks!) > Glad you liked them! Notice how few dissonances (or what Partch would consider dissonances) there are!
From: monz (2001-05-12) Subject: Re: Miracle of Transformation --- In tuning@y..., PERLICH@A... wrote: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/message/22515 > --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote: > > > > > The following mapping uses 7 rows of the Zboard, to even out > > the appearance of the pitches in the Blackjack scale. > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/files/monz/7row-bj-zbd.jpg > > > > The disadvantage of this is that it would not make full or > > consistent use of the available keys on the Zboard. (Of course, > > if Harvey could build one with 14 rows, or a Ztar with 7 rows...) > > > Slant this a little, and it corresponds to Graham's proposal . . . I still haven't fully understood Graham's keyboard, and still don't fully understand why he prefers meantone/31-EDO notation. > How would you illustrate the triads of the diatonic scale on the > white keys of the standard keyboard (always start with something > simple)? How about -- one color for each consonant chord, and then > each key gets multiple colors? Yeah, that seems like it would end up resembling the color system Partch painted onto his Chromelodeon keys, where the 1/1 key has 6 different colors painted under the numerator and the same 6 colors under the denominator, and the 4/3 and 3/2 keys each have 2 colors under each term. Care to try it? I'll send you the Excel file containing the mapping. -monz http://www.monz.org "All roads lead to n^0"
From: monz (2001-05-12) Subject: Re: Miracle of Transformation --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote: > The following mapping uses 7 rows of the Zboard, to even out > the appearance of the pitches in the Blackjack scale. > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/files/monz/7row-bj-zbd.jpg > > The disadvantage of this is that it would not make full or > consistent use of the available keys on the Zboard. (Of course, > if Harvey could build one with 14 rows, or a Ztar with 7 rows...) There's also another big disadvantage, to my way of thinking: the neat arrangement of black and white keys in the 6-row mapping is thrown totally out of whack in the 7-row version. Notice also that in this mapping, the progression of semitones recedes by one in each adjacent column, exactly the opposite of what happened to the Blackjack notes in the 6-row mapping. -monz http://www.monz.org "All roads lead to n^0"
From: PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM (2001-05-12) Subject: Re: Miracle of Transformation --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote: > > --- In tuning@y..., PERLICH@A... wrote: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/message/22515 > > > --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote: > > > > > > > > The following mapping uses 7 rows of the Zboard, to even out > > > the appearance of the pitches in the Blackjack scale. > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/files/monz/7row-bj-zbd.jpg > > > > > > The disadvantage of this is that it would not make full or > > > consistent use of the available keys on the Zboard. (Of course, > > > if Harvey could build one with 14 rows, or a Ztar with 7 rows...) > > > > > Slant this a little, and it corresponds to Graham's proposal . . . > > I still haven't fully understood Graham's keyboard, and still > don't fully understand why he prefers meantone/31-EDO notation. Actually, he prefers the decimal notation as almost expressed by your keyboard diagram above (just slant it so that C [or any other note] is the same height in each octave). > > Care to try it? I'll send you the Excel file containing > the mapping. > Excel doesn't make this multicoloring easy . . .
From: graham@microtonal.co.uk (2001-05-12)
Subject: Re: Miracle of Transformation
Monz:
> > > The following mapping uses 7 rows of the Zboard, to even out
> > > the appearance of the pitches in the Blackjack scale.
> > >
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/files/monz/7row-bj-zbd.jpg
> > >
> > > The disadvantage of this is that it would not make full or
> > > consistent use of the available keys on the Zboard. (Of course,
> > > if Harvey could build one with 14 rows, or a Ztar with 7 rows...)
> > >
Paul:
> > Slant this a little, and it corresponds to Graham's proposal . . .
Monz:
> I still haven't fully understood Graham's keyboard, and still
> don't fully understand why he prefers meantone/31-EDO notation.
This is not my layout. The vertical steps are 1 note in 72-equal, which
isn't an important interval in Erlich-Keenan tuning. They should be 2
steps. That means you can throw out every other row. You're left with a
whole Miracle scale I think, but not octave repeating.
Kraig Grady said there was a lifetime's potential in Blackjack alone. 45
notes should do for all time. We don't need to hurry into squeezing all
72 onto a keyboard.
6 rows should do fine. It'd be nice of it were slanted so octaves were
all on the same row, but that's economics. Two octaves would also be fine
if that's all the budget stretches to, so long as a load of keys aren't
being wasted. Two many octaves and you'll find the scale slides off the
top.
The problem with this layout is the span you need to cover an octave.
Really the keys should be thin, but on a ZBoard they are wide. The
alternatives I was thinking of squash the octave into 5 steps instead of
10. The lattice happens to be one of these, you might be able to adapt it
to work with 6 rows.
For a Ztar, emulating the Blackjack fretting pattern should work too. I
still don't know how to tune the strings, but 6 strings and 6 generators
to a fifth may be significant.
> > How would you illustrate the triads of the diatonic scale on the
> > white keys of the standard keyboard (always start with something
> > simple)? How about -- one color for each consonant chord, and then
> > each key gets multiple colors?
>
>
> Yeah, that seems like it would end up resembling the color
> system Partch painted onto his Chromelodeon keys, where the
> 1/1 key has 6 different colors painted under the numerator
> and the same 6 colors under the denominator, and the 4/3 and
> 3/2 keys each have 2 colors under each term.
As the notation uses 10 nominals, coloring those white and everything else
black should work fine.
Graham
From: monz (2001-05-12) Subject: Re: Miracle of Transformation --- In tuning@y..., graham@m... wrote: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/message/22550 > > Monz: > > > The following mapping uses 7 rows of the Zboard, to even > > out the appearance of the pitches in the Blackjack scale. > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/files/monz/7row-bj-zbd.jpg Graham: > This is not my layout. The vertical steps are 1 note in > 72-equal, which isn't an important interval in Erlich-Keenan > tuning. They should be 2 steps. That means you can throw out > every other row. You're left with a whole Miracle scale I > think, but not octave repeating. > > Kraig Grady said there was a lifetime's potential in Blackjack > alone. 45 notes should do for all time. We don't need to hurry > into squeezing all 72 onto a keyboard. Agreed. I simply adapted it this way because the numbers and layout of the keys on the existing Ztar suggested it. > > 6 rows should do fine. It'd be nice of it were slanted so > octaves were all on the same row, but that's economics. Agree with this too. > ... > > The problem with this layout is the span you need to cover an > octave. Really the keys should be thin, but on a ZBoard they > are wide. Not only do I agree with this, but it's the first thing I mentioned to Harvey yesterday after I made my experimental layout. So if we want narrower keys, an "octave"-maintaining slant, and different row/colum numbers, we might as well hammer out here what we think might be an ideal keyboard, then try to raise enough money to get Harvey to create a prototype. Once it's built, it may very well be a microtonal instrument desired by a lot of people. > The alternatives I was thinking of squash the octave into 5 > steps instead of 10. The lattice happens to be one of these, > you might be able to adapt it to work with 6 rows. I'm really interested in this but don't see it. Can you give a small example? > > For a Ztar, emulating the Blackjack fretting pattern should > work too. I still don't know how to tune the strings, but > 6 strings and 6 generators to a fifth may be significant. Again, an example would help me understand. I like visuals. > > > > How would you illustrate the triads of the diatonic scale on the > > > white keys of the standard keyboard (always start with something > > > simple)? How about -- one color for each consonant chord, and then > > > each key gets multiple colors? > > > > > > Yeah, that seems like it would end up resembling the color > > system Partch painted onto his Chromelodeon keys, where the > > 1/1 key has 6 different colors painted under the numerator > > and the same 6 colors under the denominator, and the 4/3 and > > 3/2 keys each have 2 colors under each term. > > As the notation uses 10 nominals, coloring those white and > everything else black should work fine. Once again, an example please. Try to post something that I can render in a diagram like the ones I've already made. -monz http://www.monz.org "All roads lead to n^0"
From: graham@microtonal.co.uk (2001-05-12)
Subject: Re: Miracle of Transformation
Monz wrote:
> > The problem with this layout is the span you need to cover an
> > octave. Really the keys should be thin, but on a ZBoard they
> > are wide.
>
> Not only do I agree with this, but it's the first thing
> I mentioned to Harvey yesterday after I made my experimental
> layout.
>
> So if we want narrower keys, an "octave"-maintaining slant,
> and different row/colum numbers, we might as well hammer out
> here what we think might be an ideal keyboard, then try to
> raise enough money to get Harvey to create a prototype.
> Once it's built, it may very well be a microtonal instrument
> desired by a lot of people.
The ideal keyboard probably wouldn't have the slant, so it'd be more
adaptable to other tunings. Having two manuals instead of one very long
keyboard might be better for multiple octaves. Same idea as the Z-Board,
in fact.
I think a grid arrangement is right in context, and also for decatonic
scales, and generally where you have neutral thirds or seconds. So we'd
have two basic designs: squares for these scales, and hexagons for the
traditional duodecimals.
I hope we can get publication in a prominent journal to push up demand for
this kind of thing. It seems a lot of what this list considers important,
particularly Erv Wilson's ideas, have passed academe by.
> > The alternatives I was thinking of squash the octave into 5
> > steps instead of 10. The lattice happens to be one of these,
> > you might be able to adapt it to work with 6 rows.
>
> I'm really interested in this but don't see it.
> Can you give a small example?
If you take a segment of the lattice, without connecting anything up:
5^^ 8^^ 1^ 4^ 7^ 0
0^ 3^ 6^ 9^ 2 5
5^ 8^ 1 4 7 0v
0 3 6 9 2v 5v
5 8 1v 4v 7v 0w
0v 3v 6v 9v 2w 5w
That's giving us an octave with only 5 notes along, but a considerable
vertical drift. It also means every two steps up is a quomma, same as the
12 column arrangement for 72. If the keyboard extended in both
directions, this might be useful. In fact, it might be possible to fit it
on the hexagonal arrangement. So we have two layouts, one for melody and
the other for harmony. Unfortunately they seem to want different
keyboards.
The other way of getting 5 steps to the octave is to progress by
supermajor instead of minor seconds:
1^ 3^ 5^ 7^ 9^ 1
0^ 2^ 4^ 6^ 8^ 0
1 3 5 7 9 1v
0 2 4 6 8 0v
1v 3v 5v 7v 9v 1w
So quommas are two steps up again, and the drift's a bit smaller. But the
generality's lost because one step up could be two completely different
intervals. So I don't think this would work, but perhaps somebody can see
a variation I can't.
I think the boring layout is best. I can reach an octave on my normal
keyboard. If you had 10 keys fitting into that space they should be
playable. For melody, it's fine. For harmony it should still work as
well as what we're used to. You wouldn't need more than 3 rows at a time
for 11-limit chords. The lattice arrangement may be best if you want to
play decimally on a MicroZone.
> > For a Ztar, emulating the Blackjack fretting pattern should
> > work too. I still don't know how to tune the strings, but
> > 6 strings and 6 generators to a fifth may be significant.
>
> Again, an example would help me understand.
> I like visuals.
Consider the neck held with the nut on the left. The frets would be:
# || || || ||| || || || || || ||
# || || || ||| || || || || || ||
# || || || ||| || || || || || ||
# || || || ||| || || || || || ||
# || || || ||| || || || || || ||
# || || || ||| || || || || || ||
and that should give you one octave. This obviously isn't to scale. It
partly mimics the fretting I already use. Hopefully you could work it out
so that the wider spacing works for the most important notes. All we need
is a way of tuning the strings to get nice easy chord patterns, and
roughly the same gamut on each string.
> > As the notation uses 10 nominals, coloring those white and
> > everything else black should work fine.
>
> Once again, an example please. Try to post something that
> I can render in a diagram like the ones I've already made.
If you take the boring layout
0^^ 1^^ 2^^ 3^^ 4^^ 5^^ 6^^ 7^^ 8^^ 9^^ 0^^^
0^ 1^ 2^ 3^ 4^ 5^ 6^ 7^ 8^ 9^ 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0v
0v 1v 2v 3v 4v 5v 6v 7v 8v 9v 0w
0w 1w 2w 3w 4w 5w 6w 7w 8w 9w 0vw
Anything number with a symbol after it would be a black key, the nominals
white keys. Or any other colour pair; I happen to favour red and yellow.
If you were reading from a decimal score, your eye would immediately be
drawn to the nominals, and the amount by which you had to move your finger
to get to the accidentals would correspond to the number of ^ or v symbols
you see. It would also help to be able to move the "white" keys to match
the key signature -- which could be pretty much anything.
Another idea would be to avoid the upward drift by breaking the generality
in the same place it's broken by the notation. Then the middle row would
always be the nominals, and you remap the tuning according to the key
signature. The standard tuning would then be:
0^^ 1^^ 2^^ 3^^ 4^^ 5^^ 6^^ 7^^ 8^^ 9^^ 0^^
0^ 1^ 2^ 3^ 4^ 5^ 6^ 7^ 8^ 9^ 0^
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
0v 1v 2v 3v 4v 5v 6v 7v 8v 9v 0v
0w 1w 2w 3w 4w 5w 6w 7w 8w 9w 0w
There'd have to be some way of flagging the octaves visually. Partly to
make the break clear, so that you remember to adjust fingering. Also to
have something to orient you to the keyboard. I think I prefer the drift,
but it's an idea.
`
Graham
From: jpehrson@rcn.com (2001-05-13) Subject: all set up... ready to go --- In tuning@y..., David C Keenan <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/message/22432 > > ! > ! blackjack.scl > ! > Paul Erlich, Tuning list ~5-May-2001, 7/72 octave generator > 21 > ! > 33.3333333 > 116.6666667 > 150.0 > 233.3333333 > 266.6666667 > 350.0 > 383.3333333 > 466.6666667 > 500.0 > 583.3333333 > 616.6666667 > 700.0 > 733.3333333 > 816.6666667 > 850.0 > 933.3333333 > 966.6666667 > 1050.0 > 1083.333333 > 1166.666667 > 2/1 > Thanks, again, to Dave Keenan for providing this Scala text file. I'm all set up and ready to go with this new "blackjack" scale. Right off the top I notice a couple of things. One, as shown in Monz' vertical chart, the scale steps are, of course, not even. Did someone post the cents differences of the intervals? If so, I missed it (not hard to figure out!) It seems almost as though PAIRS of steps are rather "inflections" of a tone. Not a problem, but interesting to me. It seems that "33 cents" is the "inflection" in this case... (??) Is there a reason why, in the construction, it came out this way? There are some REALLY beautiful sonorities... on my simple Halberstadt a template "perfect fifth" with a "tritone" under it makes an amazing statement. I have a couple "technical" questions that I SHOULD know about SCALA but don't... I typed everything into SCALA... but how does one get it to just use the text file again, to save on the typing?? I tried to just "cut and paste" it into SCALA, but that obviously wasn't the right way. Also, the definition in SCALA rounds everything to the nearest thousands... I assume there is a way in SCALA to change this definition. Would it really make any difference to have less than .001 of a cent?? Well, since my synth has a definition of only 1.5 cents... I guess not. I'd need a "Rayma" (pricey!) Of course, I was able to IMMEDIATELY hear this scale using the GRAHAM BREED MIDI RELAY. An invaluable tool... back up and running again on my system... ________ ______ ______ _______ Joseph Pehrson
From: xouoxno@virtulink.com (2001-05-13) Subject: Re: all set up... ready to go --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote: > I assume there is a way in SCALA to change this definition. Would it > really make any difference to have less than .001 of a cent?? Well, > since my synth has a definition of only 1.5 cents... I guess not. > I'd need a "Rayma" (pricey!) Rayna? Kyma? David Beardsley
From: Graham Breed (2001-05-13)
Subject: RE: all set up... ready to go
Joseph Pehrson wrote:
> Right off the top I notice a couple of things. One, as shown in
> Monz' vertical chart, the scale steps are, of course, not even.
>
> Did someone post the cents differences of the intervals? If so, I
> missed it (not hard to figure out!)
It alternates 2 and 5 steps of 72-equal. That'll be 33.3 and 83.3 cents.
> It seems almost as though PAIRS of steps are rather "inflections" of
> a tone. Not a problem, but interesting to me. It seems that "33
> cents" is the "inflection" in this case... (??)
Yes, most pairs will be the semitone of 7/72 Oct or 116.7 cents.
> Is there a reason why, in the construction, it came out this way?
Yes, it's an MOS.
> There are some REALLY beautiful sonorities... on my simple
> Halberstadt a template "perfect fifth" with a "tritone" under it
> makes an amazing statement.
I think you've discovered 5-limit harmony.
Graham
"I toss therefore I am" -- Sartre
From: jpehrson@rcn.com (2001-05-13) Subject: Re: Miracle of Transformation --- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/message/22506 > > My priority at the moment is to make Blackjack accessible to non- math musicians and describe its harmonic and melodic resources in a way that they can use. So showing the patterns that various chords make on a keyboard or guitar would be useful. But Graham, I'm sure that whatever you feel moved to elucidate will prove useful eventually. > > -- Dave Keenan This is, indeed, a very high priority, Dave, and I thank you so much for undertaking it... I will be anxious to see what you come up with in this respect if you haven't posted it already... (I'm still behind after a computer crash...) _________ _______ ______ ___ Joseph Pehrson
From: paul@stretch-music.com (2001-05-13) Subject: Re: all set up... ready to go --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote: > Right off the top I notice a couple of things. One, as shown in > Monz' vertical chart, the scale steps are, of course, not even. > > Did someone post the cents differences of the intervals? If so, I > missed it (not hard to figure out!) Easy: the pattern is s L s L s L s L s L s L s L s L s L s L s where s=33.333 cents and L = 83.333 cents. > > It seems almost as though PAIRS of steps are rather "inflections" of > a tone. In the sense of 10 tones per octave, yes . . . except that around the "tonic" you have a TRIPLET, rather than a PAIR. > Not a problem, but interesting to me. It seems that "33 > cents" is the "inflection" in this case... (??) Yup. > > Is there a reason why, in the construction, it came out this way? Well, it's a chicken-and-egg thing, but if you remember that the generator is 7/72 octave, then 10 generators is 70/72 octave, which falls short of an octave by 2/72 octave, or 33 cents. The full 31-tone scale is more "even" . . . this 21-tone set is its bastard child . . . you could spend 10 years with this, 10 years with the 31-tone, 10 years with the 41-tone, and finally make full use of 72-tET unfettered! > > There are some REALLY beautiful sonorities... on my simple > Halberstadt a template "perfect fifth" with a "tritone" under it > makes an amazing statement. Depending on where you played this, it might be a "JI" minor triad.
From: jpehrson@rcn.com (2001-05-13) Subject: Re: Miracle of Transformation --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/message/22514 I'm sure you've caught this by now, Monz... but there's another directory level in this Monzo files "bj" so the links aren't valid. Interesting mapping of the "blackjack" to 72-tET. I'm hoping this will someday become our new "generalized" keyboard! _________ ______ ____ _ Joseph Pehrson
From: monz (2001-05-13) Subject: Re: Miracle of Transformation --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/message/22680 > --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/message/22514 > > I'm sure you've caught this by now, Monz... but there's another > directory level in this Monzo files "bj" so the links aren't valid. Thanks, Joe. I added that new directory *after* I sent this post. You'll eventually find another post referring to it. > > Interesting mapping of the "blackjack" to 72-tET. It was a natural. The 6 x 24 layout that Harvey already built into the Ztar made me think of it right away. > > I'm hoping this will someday become our new "generalized" > keyboard! Me too! If there's enough interest on this list, and enough money forthcoming, Harvey can put it into production. This would be *much* more affordable than a MicroZone. While Harvey doesn't understand a lot about tuning theory, he knows that subscribers to this list are a primary market for his products, so he does read it. Let's give him some encouragement to produce this stuff, and a lot of us will have fantastic new instruments to work with. The major obstacle, as always, is lack of money. -monz http://www.monz.org "All roads lead to n^0"
From: jpehrson@rcn.com (2001-05-13) Subject: Re: all set up... ready to go --- In tuning@y..., xouoxno@v... wrote: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/message/22656 > --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote: > > > I assume there is a way in SCALA to change this definition. Would > it > > really make any difference to have less than .001 of a cent?? Well, > > since my synth has a definition of only 1.5 cents... I guess not. > > I'd need a "Rayma" (pricey!) > > Rayna? Kyma? > > > David Beardsley Sorry, David... wrong "karma..." Rayna, obviously... ________ ______ ______ Joseph Pehrson
From: paul@stretch-music.com (2001-05-14) Subject: Re: all set up... ready to go --- In tuning@y..., paul@s... wrote: > --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote: > > There are some REALLY beautiful sonorities... on my simple > > Halberstadt a template "perfect fifth" with a "tritone" under it > > makes an amazing statement. > > Depending on where you played this, it might be a "JI" minor triad. Sorry, Joseph . . . that's not correct. You know why? Because wherever there's the _sound_ of a perfect fifth in this blackjack tuning, it's going to _look_ like an octave on the keyboard. Isn't that cool, Joseph? I thought you'd appreciate that, being as "keyboard-fixated" as you are? :) Anyway, I thought this was a nice piece of PRACTICAL information for anyone trying to play around with this tuning on a keyboard.
From: jpehrson@rcn.com (2001-05-14) Subject: Re: all set up... ready to go --- In tuning@y..., paul@s... wrote: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/message/22761 > --- In tuning@y..., paul@s... wrote: > > --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote: > > > > There are some REALLY beautiful sonorities... on my simple > > > Halberstadt a template "perfect fifth" with a "tritone" under it > > > makes an amazing statement. > > > > Depending on where you played this, it might be a "JI" minor triad. > > Sorry, Joseph . . . that's not correct. > > You know why? Because wherever there's the _sound_ of a perfect fifth > in this blackjack tuning, it's going to _look_ like an octave on the > keyboard. > > Isn't that cool, Joseph? I thought you'd appreciate that, being > as "keyboard-fixated" as you are? :) > YOU BET! AND I DO "DIG" THAT! > Anyway, I thought this was a nice piece of PRACTICAL information for anyone trying to play around with this tuning on a keyboard. D**M RIGHT! And on to more "theoretical" issues later... I'm only behind 200+ posts! __________ ______ ____ Joseph Pehrson
From: jpehrson@rcn.com (2001-05-18) Subject: Re: all set up... ready to go --- In tuning@y..., paul@s... wrote: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/message/22677 > --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote: > > > Right off the top I notice a couple of things. One, as shown in > > Monz' vertical chart, the scale steps are, of course, not even. > > > > Did someone post the cents differences of the intervals? If so, I > > missed it (not hard to figure out!) > > Easy: the pattern is s L s L s L s L s L s L s L s L s L s L s > > where s=33.333 cents and L = 83.333 cents. > > Thanks so much for your clear explanation of this, Paul, as ever. I saved it right away... > > The full 31-tone scale is more "even" . . . this 21-tone set is its > bastard child . . . you could spend 10 years with this, 10 years with the 31-tone, 10 years with the 41-tone, and finally make full use of 72-tET unfettered! > > This actually sounds like a good plan... perhaps I'll do that! Maybe by the time I reach 72-tET, I'll have a keyboard that can play it! Maybe Monzo can figure out how to mass market the "Monzone..." _________ _______ _______ _____ Joseph Pehrson
From: monz (2001-05-18) Subject: Re: all set up... ready to go --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/message/23043 > Maybe Monzo can figure out how to mass market the "Monzone..." Sure, I have a good brain, so it's easy figure out how. The problem is, I don't have the *money* to do it! In fact, I've already made the attempt by starting out on the "low end" (so to speak) and trying to convince everyone here that we should make a concerted group effort to get zillions of Ztars in production. So far, exactly 3 people have joined in. Quite a bit less than what I was hoping or expecting. -monz http://www.monz.org "All roads lead to n^0"
From: jpehrson@rcn.com (2001-05-20) Subject: Re: all set up... ready to go --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/message/23070 > > --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/message/23043 > > > Maybe Monzo can figure out how to mass market the "Monzone..." > > > Sure, I have a good brain, so it's easy figure out how. > > The problem is, I don't have the *money* to do it! > > > In fact, I've already made the attempt by starting out on > the "low end" (so to speak) and trying to convince everyone > here that we should make a concerted group effort to get > zillions of Ztars in production. > > So far, exactly 3 people have joined in. Quite a bit less > than what I was hoping or expecting. > Well, quite possibly fewer people have $1,000 sitting around to throw at this than we might like. Additionally, it's primarily a GUITAR as I understand it... not a keyboard, so that would be a disincentive for some... (me, for instance...) __________ ________ _______ Joseph Pehrson
From: monz (2001-05-20) Subject: Re: all set up... ready to go --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/message/23351 > Well, quite possibly fewer people have $1,000 sitting around > to throw at this than we might like. Sure, I can understand that. But there's always financing. Do you think the few people who *have* purchased the $8800 MicroZone dropped all that cash at once? Hardly. I see accounts at Starr Labs that have been pending for over 3 years. A little money at a time, and eventually you get yourself a new instrument. Harvey's quite easy to work with. > Additionally, it's primarily a GUITAR as I understand it... > not a keyboard, so that would be a disincentive > for some... (me, for instance...) Joe, I've responded to this before. The Ztar is *NOT* primarily a guitar. If it's primarily anything, it's primarily a unique new kind of keyboard. But really it's a true hybrid between guitar and keyboard. I've mentioned here before that you can have it built with as much or as little of the guitar stuff as desired. I'm getting one that's just the keyboard and electronics, without any of the guitar trappings. -monz http://www.monz.org "All roads lead to n^0"