Re: Drive the dork of doubt away.

[Bohgosity BumaskiL]

http://ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/Sound/Ode_To_Joy.mp3
_______
Re-writing Beethoven: The blasphemy does not end there. Heh-heh-heh.

On 2011-12-02 10:37 AM, Alain Naigeon wrote:
> "Bohgosity BumaskiL" <brew...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> a écrit dans le
> message de news:9jr7tb...@mid.individual.net ...
>> On 2011-12-01 6:47 AM, Alain Naigeon wrote:
(snip)
>>> 12tet was mentionned in the sixteenth century. Some people even say
>>> it was the way they tuned lutes (there's a controversy on this point).
>> Mentioning it does not make it real.
> Go and read the documents.
I suspect I would spend my time better trying to understand another just
intonation proponent, and you are welcome to point me toward some URLs
about history. All I could find was http://www.kylegann.com/histune.html
, and I naturally got tired of it in the middle, because it kept talking
about cents, and cents are inferior to a ratio simply stated az 1.x

With "Beethoven tuning -cents", I found
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/message/85782 , which seems
to find that Beethoven was interested in tuning, and which also seems to
find that ET was not az rampant az today. I wonder what E.T. would find
for a tuning if he phoned home 8-)

http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/message/85782
...in case you missed out on the good vibes for Aliens in America.
...I'm an alien. I'm a legal alien. I'm a...Canadian in New Yoh'ohrk.
>> Baroque-period instruments are not 12-TET.
> I told you about one instrument, during Renaissance.
> Please do read before answering.
I was talking about the majority of instruments, and I should've been
more fuzzy about how much I know about it, because I did not perceive
other methods than logarithms for arriving at ET. I know about your own
preference for Pythagorean harmonies, which are a system that is both
just (which can be done by ear, once you are attuned to a perfect
fifth), and a fore-runner of equal, because it _primarily_ uses one
ratio. If you care to read my source code, then you will notice that I
mix and match Pythagorean harmonies with just harmonies, including
perfect octaves.

A peculiarity is in 64:4 (576:405), which was Terry Riley's choice of
tritone. It iz a 5-limit tritone. Other choices for a note between a
perfect fifth and a perfect fourth include 11:8, 7:5, 17:12, and 13:9
(in order of magnitude). Two of those choices are not tritones.

I wonder if a list of intervals iz already in order of magnitude. I know
how to use Lotus 123. I do not know how to use Excel, a version of which
I got with a very cheap and old (2004) version of MS-Works. Maybe it iz
time to learn (open office?). IOW, I do not know an easy way to re-sort
http://www.huygens-fokker.org/docs/intervals.html , yet.
>> I suppose you could do the calculations: 440/2^(1/12),
> Precisely, there has been contributions showing they
> had the concept before discovering logarithms.
>
>> and 440 was not a
>> standard until 1920.
> There *no* relation ship between a temperament and the choice
> of the tuning fork frequency !!
> And that's specially true under 12TET, of course !
Yes, I am well accustomed to works that use a non-standard A. Before
about 2010, I was not even bothering with making my pieces usable on
12-TET instruments. Contrastingly, many of my recent works do not (in
any obvious way) break under "pitch correction", unless they use
atypical ratios. 440Hz for an A probably explains the proliferation of
12-TET. On the other side of the equation, if you tune in just, then you
must also select a key. Before about 1985, that key was not a single
number in parameters for a software synthesizer.
>> How would you even go about using 12-TET without an oscilloscope?
> Ha ha it's well known they tune pianos with oscilloscopes.
> Are you able to admit you're wrong sometimes ?
While I hav never seen an oscilloscope used, I would know how to use one
in that application. I hav seen a pitch meter of some sort used. I
suspect that it read error in cents, which would explain why cents are
so prolific, and nonetheless useless in understanding what ratio a given
"error" reprezents -- not unless you know how to convert cents back into
1.x, and from there to a fraction.

If I am wrong, (and in many respects, we actually agree, Alain), it is
because I am out of my field in music history. I hav an encyclopedia of
music. I hav not read much of it, perhaps
because I am busy trying to make history in a field of electronic music,
where it iz hard to make a personal scene; find a gig where MP3 players
are acceptable accompaniment, other than the internet, where a lot of
promotional methods are against my ethics (or outside of my bujet).

That only covers about half of my work, though. I hav two likely
partners for making an open mic, a-Capella set, and better demonstration
tracks: Four parts are better with contrasting voices, IMAO.

Az I hav said, even mathematics contains an art of rhetoric. To prove
myself right, I hav to take a four-part work, often heard in 12-TET, and
make it sound better. To do that *well*, I *might* need to change the
orijinal harmony (and *probably* learn a more sophisticated synthesizer
than my own). To prove myself convincingly, I would *not* change the
orijinal harmony: I would merely interpret it. I might do interpretation
first, then improve upon someone else's work. In the usual course of
events, though, I sing melody for a while, and I bend even that, because
I hav a natural _aversion_ to repeated notes.

For example, I sing "Ode To Joy" with different notes and a different
beat than Beethoven (not that Beethoven knew any lyrics, much less
English, for it), and my harmony iz of course different than the bit in
hiz niinth symphony. Beethoven had an *affinity* for repeated notes
(successive unison) in hiz niinth and fifth symphonies.
_______
Bubbles are in my think tank.