How to use each key (in case anyone needs help!)

I propose the following

The American Medical Association's Diagnostic Manual of Scales and their Effects on Human Health

Scales as excellent Diuretics

Ionian

Aeolian

HypoMixolydian

Prometheus

Recommended dosage - 6, 30 second exposures at least 12 hours apart

Scales Excellent for Reducing LDL Cholesterol

D minor

C major

Phrygian

Algerian nine note scales (except when starting tone is E double flat - this may raise LDL and has shown to form liver malignancies when mixed with Dorian)

Recommended Dosage - Once a day in an acoustically live bathroom for at least 15 minutes.

Scales that successfully treat Bulemia

Locrain

B flat minor

Recommended Dose - At a decibel of 90 or higher, 4 - 5 second blasts 3 times a day

All other scales have not shown conclusive evidence of their medical worth in tests Some pending research shows listening to every possible Key and Mode and Artificial scale 20 minutes a day may have a similar effect as mutlivitamin supplements. As with multivitamins, do not administer keys/modes/artificial scales to children under 4 or pregnant women. Consult a doctor and music theoretician to ensure you administer the correct scale and the correct dosage.

:toothygrin:

Locrian will successfully treat ANYTHING.

By the way, Mozart used crayons, not paintbrushes. Common misconception.

Ah thank you Dr Qmwne235 for that correction.

Silence treats ANYTHING, including sanity. Listen to 4'33" at least 5 (five) times a day. In case of emergency, gradually but quickly increase the dose until you reach 317 times a day.

As far as key color is concerned we need to recognize that this WAS relevant before the eighteen hundreds, but it was a DEFECT of tuning, a quirk, not a benefit or tool.

When one tunes a one dimensional instrument (ie piano) and decides to base it off of more perfect intervals than the ones we use in 12 tone equal temperament, the note off of which we base the tuning will have the most pure intervals and the further you get away from that note as far as relatedness in tuning theory (which is TWO dimensional), the less pure the intervals. So every single key will actually have a "charactor" or "color", given to it by the perfectness of the intervals it contains. It was and impediment to free modulation, not so much a tool used by composers to convey their musical ideas.

This was solved, or more so compromised, when we adopted 12-tone equal temperament, spreading out the imperfectness of these intervals through all of the keys making none of them completely pure but none of them wretchedly out of tune either. This is likely the best compromise for one dimensional instruments like the piano or clavier, but is unnecessary when tuning two dimensional instruments like the Thummer.

So nowadays the only different "feelings" from each key we get are from the ergonomics of the instrument we are playing. Pianist will play in F# and think anger or frustration only because that is what we think of as far as reading and playing in the key, no so much hearing it. The key in which you play may even effect your composisional style, but once again it only pertains to the ergonomics of the instrument, not the interpretation of the sound itself.

Further reading?

Pitch space - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.thummer.com/ThumTone/Tuning_Invariant_Layouts_Last_Draft.pdf

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia wiki/Quarter-comma_meantone

http://www.thummer.com/papers/matrix.pdf

John M

A defect? That's just a point of view, depending on what's important for you. It's obvious that equal temperament has advantages when it comes to free modulation and "equality" of the keys - and quite as obvious that other tunings have advantages if you look for just intervals or differently sounding keys. The fact that equal temperament mostly won out over time doesn't mean it's "superior" - it just means preferences in how different qualities were weighted shifted over time.

The fact that many composers today again compose in such tunings as meantone temperament, just, pythagorean, etc. shows that those certainly aren't mere "defects".

You might as well say the fact that the recorder and the harpsichord are inherently "defective" instruments, since they were mostly abandonned in the 19th century… (Sure, they -were- abandoned because of not being able to do a thing well that became important in that time, dynamics, but that doesn't make the whole instrument fundamentally worse if you look for different aspects, such as many 20th/21st century composers again.)

You make a good point when you say that both 12-TET and other meantone tunings are equally applicable to the piano, depending on the players preference. So if you ask me, BOTH 12-TET and our approximated meantone tunings are defects, that is they both are forcing upon us compromises between consonance and free modulation.

The reason why I feel I have the right to call these defects is the fact that once we begin representing pitch in two dimensional space as tonnetz, we can then solve these problems 100%. It's only our unwillingness to move away from 1-D instruments like the piano that keeps us constrained to these compromises of 12-TET and meantone tunings. When basing a two dimensional pitch axis on the intervals off of which our tunings are based (in the syntonic temperament), that is the fifth and the octave, what one ends up with is a different note for Eb and D#, on different places in the pitch space field. This allows us to use one or the other depending on the key to which we have modulated. So now we can theoretically, and in practice, have free modulation AND our perfect intervals.

Note how tuning theory is based off of TWO parameters, that is the fifth and the octave, and is actually TWO dimensional in nature, which is why we have always had to compromise when fitting it to a one dimensional instrument.

If one takes our current instrumentation of the piano as a given, then we are forced to have these preferences of whether we prefer free modulation to perfect intervals.

But, if one does not take these for granted and opens one's mind to alternate instruments that open up pitch into the second dimension (the dimension of *Tuning*), all of a sudden we don't have to make a compromise and we can get both our perfect intervals and free modulation. The only compromise is the fact that we have to give up our sentimental attachment to instruments that can not display tunings perfectly.

John M

If you want everything, you'll always learn that you'll have to settle for a compromise. Sure, by having many "variants" of the same tone, one can reduce the "problems" of modulation vs. just intervals. But it doesn't just end with the method you suggest as a quasi magical solution. What if I want just thirds? You can't deny that these are traditionally an important aspect of tuning systems...

And what if I'm even not happy then? What if I want just 7ths as well? Or just tritones? Or what if I want to play music that is written for -completely- different tuning systems? Just going "2d" isn't going to be the end of all solution for every purpose.

I'm not bashing your suggestion. It's a fine idea and certainly very useful for many people. But my point is that every mechanical instrument has it's limits, and it's your choice how to work with them. You can try to expand those instruments to suit your specific needs. Or you could actually take those limits as an inspiration to compose. Or maybe you just want to be able to use any frequency ad libitum and decide to make electronic music only? Whatever pleases you.

But generally, "defects" are only defects if they happen not to suit you.

If you want everything, you'll always learn that you'll have to settle for a compromise.

Sure, by having many "variants" of the same tone, one can reduce the "problems" of modulation vs. just intervals. But it doesn't just end with the method you suggest as a quasi magical solution. What if I want just thirds? You can't deny that these are traditionally an important aspect of tuning systems... And what if I'm even not happy then? What if I want just 7ths as well? Or just tritones? Or what if I want to play music that is written for -completely- different tuning systems? Just going "2d" isn't going to be the end of all solution for every purpose.

Interesting you say that. Because 2D layouts solve everything that you say they do not. In a two dimensional axis of pitch, one DOES ends up with every perfect interval. Just thirds, fifths, sevenths, and so on. This is because it can be built off of the same parameters as tuning, which are based of the overtones of harmonic pitches, which create just intervals. Note that different enharmonic spellings are not just variants of the same tone. They are different pitches defined by the stack and reduce method of tuning, that is one chooses a given size for our fifth in cents, stacks them on top of each other, and drops these newly defined pitches down octaves to create one's scales. An F#, or I should say augmented fourth, is creating by stacking up fifths from C, or the tonic, 6 times, and dropping down the octaves, while a Gb (flatted fifth) is created by dropping down that value of the fifth 6 times and then "adding" octaves. They are different note values with different pitches created by the same parameters in the same tuning.

And here's the kicker for my quasi magical solution (btw, this is not my solution. It was implemented by Thumtronics[tm] and it almost hit the market before the economy tanked. .: | Thumtronics - The new shape of music | :. ). Because two dimensional pitch axes can be built off of the same parameters as tuning, given an instrument (again, like the Thummer) in which you can, in real time, modify the parameters of the size of the fifth and the octave, one CAN play in alternates tunings of 5, 7, 9,10, 12, 19, 37, and 53 or even an infinite equal division of the octave, and play them all with the same fingerings.

Here is a mathematical paper describing the fingering invariance of two dimensional layouts, even across tunings, not just keys:

http://www.thummer.com/ThumTone/Tuning_Invariant_Layouts_Last_Draft.pdf

And here's one describing how it manages to create the layout by basing it off of the parameters to which I was referring.

http://www.thummer.com/papers/matrix.pdf

Finally, here are two videos; one is a performance using these two dimensional layouts to play in alternate tunings, and the other is a somewhat corny demonstration of "dynamic tonality", or the changing tunings in real time.

Sound too good to be true? It's for real. An instrument that can play in all keys and all tunings with the same fingering, with all just intervals. Sounds amazing, but really what is amazing is that we are so static as a musical community that we are unwilling to accept these instruments due to biases against isomorphic instruments and music actually being accessible to more than 5% of the population.

John M

I'm not really in the mood of reading all those articles right now, however clever they may be, so let me say some things in principle.

First of all, I thought we were talking about mechanical instruments and not electronic ones, for which obviously less limits exist (which is why I said "or maybe you just want to be able to use any frequency ad libitum and decide to make electronic music only").

It's obvious that you can make electronic instruments that can play any tuning, if you adjust them right. And if you design that instrument cleverly, you can even make it relatively easy to use for most purposes. But there are always purposes where it gets more complex and not just "intuitively pressing a button". You can't tell me that you can "easily do everything" with your instruments.

But as I said, it's all perfectly fine. Those are instruments created for a specific purpose, to overcome the deficits some people see with other instruments. Perfectly fine. And at the same time they create new deficits if you want other things.

However, my MAIN point is: Try to cut back on the advertisement for that product. We understand you find it great. You have told us about it and it's fine. But you come off like a salesman (which I strongly assume your primary purpose on this forum is), which doesn't do your argument much good.

However, my MAIN point is: Try to cut back on the advertisement for that product. We understand you find it great. You have told us about it and it's fine. But you come off like a salesman (which I strongly assume your primary purpose on this forum is), which doesn't do your argument much good.

I do realize that my discussions, besides the one that I started specifically about isomorphic instruments, do seem to keep coming back to what may seem like my advertising. But first, please realize that I am a 17 year old who is in no way affiliated with any of the companies that are marketing these instruments and in no way benefit from their sales(other than having someone else with whom I could compare experiences), and also that the points I make are valid, and I require the discussion of these instruments to make my point.

My sole purpose on this forum is not to advertise, but I would very much like to expose other young performers/composers to these instruments because I have strong reason to believe in their benefits. I found these alternate instruments on my own and was intrigued by how much sense they made. After doing a lot of research and reading I learned how expansive their possibilities are and I think they have a right to be considered as serious musical instruments.

Please also note that the instrument to which I continually refer, the Thummer, has gone bankrupt as of several months ago and is likely never to see commercial success in its first incarnation. So this is not even so much an advertisement of a product as it is the advertisement of a concept

I come off as a salesman because these instruments are almost completely unknown to the general music making population and if I don't provide every example and explain every benefit to every single person in every single discussion, there is likely to be misunderstanding or these concepts are likely to be overlooked or dismissed as blasphemy against musical canon.

It's obvious that you can make electronic instruments that can play any tuning, if you adjust them right. And if you design that instrument cleverly, you can even make it relatively easy to use for most purposes. But there are always purposes where it gets more complex and not just "intuitively pressing a button". You can't tell me that you can "easily do everything" with your instruments.

Well it's not so obvious as you might think, there were other note layouts other than the one that the Thummer would have used had it gone into production, but they were not near as lending to alternate tunings and were not built off of the same concepts as tuning theory etc. So give some credit to those that created the technology and the concepts thereof.

And of course no instrument can do *everything*. But that has not been my point. My point is that these instruments have the ability to do far MORE than current polyphonic instruments with little to no sacrifices, and should be considered seriously by the music making community as options because of their benefits.

But as I said, it's all perfectly fine. Those are instruments created for a specific purpose, to overcome the deficits some people see with other instruments. Perfectly fine. And at the same time they create new deficits if you want other things.

There are extremely few deficits with these isomorphic instruments. I've been through many discussions and so far the only ones I can see consist of the lack of diatonic or pentatonic glissandi.

But if you can think of some deficits that would arise from these instruments please bring them forward, I am open to hearing them and would be curious what anyone thinks.

Finally, there are instruments somewhat similar to the Thummer out their that are not as good and use alternate note layouts but are at least available commercially. I would post the links here, but so I do not come off as a salesman anyone following this conversation who is interested even in merely doing some research on their existence can feel free to ask and I'll get you some information.

John M

...but it was a DEFECT of tuning, a quirk, not a benefit or tool.

It was and impediment to free modulation, not so much a tool used by composers to convey their musical ideas.

This was solved, or more so compromised, when we adopted 12-tone equal temperament, spreading out the imperfectness of these intervals through all of the keys making none of them completely pure but none of them wretchedly out of tune either.

"Out of tune," "defect," seriously, as much as these are only your opinions...

So if you ask me, BOTH 12-TET and our approximated meantone tunings are defects, that is they both are forcing upon us compromises between consonance and free modulation.

The reason why I feel I have the right to call these defects is the fact that once we begin representing pitch in two dimensional space as tonnetz, we can then solve these problems 100%. It's only our unwillingness to move away from 1-D instruments like the piano that keeps us constrained to these compromises of 12-TET and meantone tunings. The only compromise is the fact that we have to give up our sentimental attachment to instruments that can not display tunings perfectly.

So you're taking a strict tonal angle, right? What if the music has no "Modulation,"? Why bother with any of that talk of compromise then? Likewise, then none of what you say applies since the "defects" as you call them aren't defects anymore.

As for moving away from regular instruments, well, why? People like how they sound, which is the end point of all this. There's no real problem with the way people tune their instruments either, baroque recreations or not. The only thing is, if YOU want to write using X or Y, well go ahead, but everyone else is free to do whatever they want.

Concerning the dynamic tonality nonsense, I already addressed this precise thing before when the guy who thought it up came here advertising it:

http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/...ity-16679.html

If they went bankrupt, oops.

"Out of tune," "defect," seriously, as much as these are only your opinions...

Consonance is not opinion. Whether a chord is the most pleasing to the ear is not up to you, it is defined by the number of peats minute of clashing partials. Now yes, we use dissonance as a tool to create tension, but (here is I guess where the opinion comes in) we should not be FORCED to have dissonance in imperfectly tuned keys; instead we should be able to modulate freely and create dissonance in our compositional work by our own means, not by those predetermined by imperfect mappings of tunings to one dimensional keyboards.

So you're taking a strict tonal angle, right? What if the music has no "Modulation,"? Why bother with any of that talk of compromise then? Likewise, then none of what you say applies since the "defects" as you call them aren't defects anymore.

100% true. This is all geared toward tonal music. These tools become inconsequential to anything but tonal music. But the majority of music is tonal and so these methods are relevent. If they are not to you, don't bother with them.

And when writing your atonal stuff, it has to be in some form of tuning, so with these new methods of tuning, I have to assume new avenues for A tonality would open up with experimentation.

As for moving away from regular instruments, well, why? People like how they sound, which is the end point of all this. There's no real problem with the way people tune their instruments either, baroque recreations or not. The only thing is, if YOU want to write using X or Y, well go ahead, but everyone else is free to do whatever they want.

The end point of this is not how the instruments sound. The timbre of an instrument is not what I wish to see change. The point is the ergonomics of the instrument for the performer. Just isomorphism without all of the tuning theory is a HUGE benefit in ergonomics, allowing one to move past learning the basics of scales and chords and onto actual musical expression FAR sooner than in non isomorphic instruments. There is NO question about that. Now if you actually value trudging your way through every key to get to the same end that someone else reached with 1/12th the effort, then that, although extremely pointless in my opinion, is your X for my Y.

You are right when you say everyone is free to do what they want. But I am more than confident that if everyone knew the benefits of isomorphic instruments and were given the chance to start over, they would choose isomorphism.

The argument against using old alternate tunings I think is already argued above, where I state that we should be allowed to use our musical expression to determine consonance and dissonance, not the key we are in. So again, if you prefer being constrained to certain keys for modulation with higher consonance, thats your X for my Y.

Concerning the dynamic tonality nonsense, I already addressed this precise thing before when the guy who thought it up came here advertising it:

Sorry SSC, but I won't be the suck-up that he was just so that he could stay on your good side and keep attempting to educate you. I read that posting where you "addressed" this "nonsense" just now and NONE of your points were valid, it was obvious that you understood NONE of the concepts he was describing, and you were COMPLETELY unwilling to even make an attempt to do so. You would obviously rather spend your time picking fights and attempting to words things so that you sound right rather than occupy yourself by reading, researching, and expirementing with these concepts that, just because they actually are new, might (gasp) not be inherently wrong.

I don't want to become hostel. But it is obvious from that posting that you will have nothing to do with anything other than meaningless banter just to see what you can draw out of people.

Unless you are going to have an intelligent conversation, I request as sincerely as I possibly can that you get the heck out of this post so that the rest of us can debate rationally.

Thanks ;-)

John M

Eh? Let's see here now...

In my opinion: Consonance is not opinion. Whether a chord is the most pleasing to the ear is not up to you, it is defined by the number of peats minute of clashing partials. Now yes, we use dissonance as a tool to create tension, but (here is I guess where the opinion comes in) we should not be FORCED to have dissonance in imperfectly tuned keys; instead we should be able to modulate freely and create dissonance in our compositional work by our own means, not by those predetermined by imperfect mappings of tunings to one dimensional keyboards.

Fixed for you, unless you care to provide how we can objectively measure the pleasantness of a chord by the beating partials. In this way, we can in theory make the "Most pleasing music in the world" as it's all a matter of having the correct formula, according to you, of the most pleasing chords! But this is a real dead horse, I suggest you search the forum for all the countless aesthetic debates before you say something like that here.

Likewise, nobody's forcing you to use equal temperament and if the instruments are the way they are, tough luck! You ain't going to change much by scalloping about it here.

100% true. This is all geared toward tonal music. These tools become inconsequential to anything but tonal music. But the majority of music is tonal and so these methods are relevent. If they are not to you, don't bother with them.

And when writing your atonal stuff, it has to be in some form of tuning, so with these new methods of tuning, I have to assume new avenues for A tonality would open up with experimentation.

Because the only things that exist are tonal and atonal music, right?

You are right when you say everyone is free to do what they want. But I am more than confident that if everyone knew the benefits of isomorphic instruments and were given the chance to start over, they would choose isomorphism.

The argument against using old alternate tunings I think is already argued above, where I state that we should be allowed to use our musical expression to determine consonance and dissonance, not the key we are in. So again, if you prefer being constrained to certain keys for modulation with higher consonance, thats your X for my Y.

Again, you're not forced to use any particular tuning or instruments. What's the problem? If other people like the equal temperament system, or any other system, what's it to you? You make it sound like it's almost an oppression of free speech, hahaha.

As for the instrument stuff, well. It's unrealistic to expect the entire canon of western music (not to mention music everywhere) is just going to suddenly drop all the instruments in favor of what you're talking about. Remember that the old instruments you talk about still need to be used to play the music they are playing right now. You can never really get rid of them unless you suggest getting rid of all the literature written for them. Likewise, you'll never get rid of any of the tuning systems for the same reason.

Unless you are going to have an intelligent conversation, I request as sincerely as I possibly can that you get the heck out of this post so that the rest of us can debate rationally.

Instead of throwing meaningless attacks at me, why not actually refute my arguments, if none of them are valid? Don't declare that I'm wrong, actually demonstrate that I am. I guess you forgot this particular part of "debating rationally," so I'll overlook this.

But considering even the creator of the thing couldn't really properly defend his own system, I doubt you'll do much better. You're of course welcome to try anyway, as always.

I haven't been following this thread, so if some of what I say has been said or isn't relevant, just ignore it.

@JLMoriart

In terms of the tunings and whatnot, okay you're right to an extent, the "commonly" accepted consonances and dissonances do have to do with beating. And you're right that 12tET is an approximation of so-called "pure" intervals. Keep in mind though, that in terms of pre-Baroque music (aside from some keyboard music) it is typically performed in its "typical" tuning (all of which USE or are very close approximations of certain "pure" intervals... in fact, thats why a lot of these tunings were created). Young temperament or Vallotti temperament are used by Baroque ensembles, and there are several performers who perform Bach in Werckmeister III. As well, there are a lot of ensembles and performers who play in these well-temperaments when performing Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven (and in Just intonation when using natural horns, etc.). Meantone and Just-tunings are used by Renaissance performers and Pythagorean tuning for medieval works. Yes, 12tET is also used for classical repertoire, but Baroque and pre-Baroque performers tend to use period tunings. Either way, these pieces were written FOR these tunings, just as (some) music today is written FOR 12tET so how could this music be "imperfect"? Its how its intended. Some composers had broken free of 12tET, starting before 12tET (so basically, breaking free of the 12 division model) was even establish, there were 16 and 31 tone meantone tunings in the Renaissance, quartertone experiments and theories in the 1860s, 31-tone equal temeperaments and Just tunings in the 20s, today tunings challenging the threshold of human pitch change perception are being used (in addition to the use of pitches above and below human hearing). So your comments that we are forced into "imperfect" tunings is a load of BS. Clearly we've not been forced into anything. And "imperfect" compared to and in terms of what? The harmonic series? While Just intonation uses intervals from the harmonic series, you get pitches and other intervals that are also, by what I think is your definition, "imperfect" and outside of the harmonic series, same thing would happen if you modulated between the harmonic series of different fundamentals. Yes, you could end up with "purer" harmonies, but your horizontal progressions will no longer be pure. And if you stick with just one set of partials from one harmonic series, your limited just as much as with other tunings, plus your result, if we're talking tonal music, wouldn't be as strong or "pure" -- for example your I chord would be "pure", your V chord would be close to "pure" (in comparison with it's root's harmonic series), but your ii wouldn't be nearly as "pure". And again, if you construct these chords on "pure" intervals (with regard to their fundamental), you're outside of your harmonic series, so still not "pure". And who says that even this "imperfect" 12tET music is confined to 12tET anyway? String players tune to a 3:2 fifth. If you have any knowledge to back up what you're saying, you'd know that that is a 1.96 cent difference from in 12tET. You'd also know that it results in a 9:8 second (not counting octave displacement) between strings IV and II and strings III and I. Which is a 3.91 cent difference from 12tET (should I bring up brass instruments again too?). And sure, we could call these "pure", and they typically are, but then again, which of the infinite 3rds in the harmonic series is the "purest", which 6th, which 2nd, or which seventh? Why is a 5:4 major third more "pure" than a 9:7 or a 24:19? Or a major second of 9:8 better than one of 10:9? Because it comes first in the harmonic series? Does that mean not all Just intervals are "pure"? That kind of defeats the purpose of using Just tunings then, doesn't it? And if anything derived from the harmonic series is "pure", well, fun fact, if we trace it up to the 5,000th+ partial, we're getting into territory in which any pitch is "pure".

There is no "imperfect" interval, there are no "pure" pitches, there is no "out of tune", these are all relative to what you're using. Out of tune means you aim for a pitch and miss it. A quarter tone isn't out of tune, if that's what you're aiming for. Sure we could say that there are more "acoustically stable" or "naturally occurring" intervals, but does that mean the others don't work?

Is 12tET better than 15tET or a 21-tone Pythagorean tuning?

Also, you calling for a change in all the instruments is ridiculous. Any instrument can play any pitch. A voice can sing any pitch, a string instrument can play anything, winds and brass can play anything through lip bends and alternate fingerings (plus, lets not forget that they're already in Just intonation), pianos and harps can be tuned to anything, marimbas and vibraphones can also be tuned to anything through preparations or changing the key length (though this is probably the trickiest).

The only "perfect" pitches are the pitches a composer decides to use for a particular piece. Whether its in 12tET, an 11-limit Just tuning, a 16 tone meantone tuning, a well tuning, a 47 note Pythagorean tuning, 84tET, 4tET, or any combination of pitches desired.

By the way, we haven't even mentioned tunings used outside of the Western Classsical tradition yet...

Again, if I misinterperted your point or missed something by not reading EVERY post in here, ignore me.

EDIT: Whats more natural or "pure" or "imperfect", the harmonic series or this?

EDITAGAIN: From SSC -- Telemann and Microtonality (The bottom of the page is in English).

Once again you've managed to completely ignore the arguments made against yours and instead of actually provide a counter argument, you have just restated your original ones.

Not only that, but you have managed to COMPLETELY misquote me, that is PUT THINGS IN MY QUOTES I DIDN'T SAY.

I did NOT say:

"In my opinion, consonance in not opinion"

I said:

"Consonance is not opinion"

Talk to me about "rational debate".

Still, I will attempt to keep this debate rational by restating my arguments, again, against points you've already attempted to make.

Fixed for you, unless you care to provide how we can objectively measure the pleasantness of a chord by the beating partials.

Relating Tuning and Timbre

There. Read it or don't bring it up again. There IS mathematically and psychologically proven data about which intervals are most consonant or pleasing to the ear, and they are defined by the partials/overtones of the timbre with which one is dealing. But I obvisously don't think that these intervals automatically makes good music. Keep reading.

You attempted to rephrase my point here:

In this way, we can in theory make the "Most pleasing music in the world" as it's all a matter of having the correct formula, according to you, of the most pleasing chords! But this is a real dead horse, I suggest you search the forum for all the countless aesthetic debates before you say something like that here.

BUT THIS IS NOT WHAT I SAID. Good music is created by COMBINATIONS of consonance and dissonance, tension and resolution, or maybe unresolved tension, or even the lack of tension altogether. I understand that you cannot create good music with a formula. What I AM saying is that we should not be restricted to using certain keys for consonance and certain ones for dissonance or be forced to compromise with 12-TET. Given dynamic tonality, we can choose, as competent composers and performers, when to employ certain tunings, be they consonant or dissonant, on the fly, in real time. This provides more flexibility to you as a composer, and therefore more room for musical expression. If it is not your goal to have the most expressive potential as a composer, if it is your goal to be limited in your compositional possibilities, then yea, totally, I see your point.

Because the only things that exist are tonal and atonal music, right?

Ok hold on. What else is there?? I'm obviously missing something.

Again, you're not forced to use any particular tuning or instruments. What's the problem? If other people like the equal temperament system, or any other system, what's it to you? You make it sound like it's almost an oppression of free speech, hahaha.

We ARE forced, by convention, to play in particular tunings.

Our common music making environment is so void of means through which one can play in alternate tunings that it almost is oppression.

ha.

ha.

If I hadn't found things like 2-d instruments and the transformsynth, I WOULD be restricted completely to 12-TET. I don't want everyone else who has not found these tools to be restricted, which is why I am constantly referring to them and discussing them, so that others have the opportunity to enjoy their benefits.

As for the instrument stuff, well. It's unrealistic to expect the entire canon of western music (not to mention music everywhere) is just going to suddenly drop all the instruments in favor of what you're talking about. Remember that the old instruments you talk about still need to be used to play the music they are playing right now. You can never really get rid of them unless you suggest getting rid of all the literature written for them. Likewise, you'll never get rid of any of the tuning systems for the same reason.

I have never said we should totally drop old instruments. I have made points against their ergonomics and points against their flexibility in modulation and tuning, but have never suggested we burn every piano from Rhode Island to California. My entire arguments has been about people opening their minds to these new instruments and methods, and to get them to at least recognize their benefits so that they can be considered by people who want to begin learning to play and compose music with a better, that is more ergonomic, inter phase.

Instead of throwing meaningless attacks at me, why not actually refute my arguments, if none of them are valid? Don't declare that I'm wrong, actually demonstrate that I am. I guess you forgot this particular part of "debating rationally," so I'll overlook this.

Oh gee thanks. Maybe after overlooking my mistakes you could, oh, I dunno, make an argument that follows rational progresssions of thought that someone can actually counter?

But considering even the creator of the thing couldn't really properly defend his own system, I doubt you'll do much better. You're of course welcome to try anyway, as always.

The thing is SSC, he DID properly defend it, with rational if then statements and logical rationale and support for his conclusions. It was you that continually failed to make rational arguments against his.

He addressed every one of your claims against his conclusions, and instead of taking and addressing his new claims, you just kept spewing out your original ones, with no regard to what it was with which he had already countered them.

Ok. I'll try and sum up your arguments from that post and dumb down his answers a little bit, because they obviously went way over your head.

Your point 1:

-Dynamic tonality is just complicated pitch bending that can be achieved by other means.

Response:

Dynamic tonality is NOT just complicated pitch bending. While every single note in pitch space defined by the isomorphic layout is bent in different directions by different amounts depending on its distance from the tonic in a stack of perfect fifths, the partials

( Harmonic series (music) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )

of the timbres are also being remapped so that they fit the new notes' of the new tuning being sounded to create consonance. If you don't understand this, you didn't read the first link in this post about partials and consonance.

This can not be done in any other application in real time. You could do it manually; take a recording and map every note to different fundamentals and partials, but this would be painstakingly difficult and could not be used for live performance.

Your Point 2:

Actually, throughout the rest of that thread, you just continually stated your original point, that all that dynamic tonality was doing was pitch bending and that it can be achieved by other means without regard to his responses completely disputing your claims.

Dynamic tonality is also remapping the partials of the sound so that the bends of the notes still sound consonant in the new tuning (this IS more than a pitch bend obviously, and again, if you don't get this, read the first link in this post.). This effect cannot be achieved by other means. No acoustic instrument has manipulatable partials. You can tune it so that the fundamentals are different but the partials or overtones can not be manipulated without changing the physical structure of the instrument(good luck doing that in real time). Also, no other electronic application has the means to do the things the transformsynth with dynamic tonality does, that is provide an inter phase where all tunings have the same fingerings when playing their corresponding musical patterns (major/minor chords/scales), and where one can change the tuning and partials in real time.

You said specifically

"Unless you aren't aware you can "perform" electronic music just the same as you can any other type of music, this makes absolutely no difference in the argument."

But in order to use dynamic tonality, which we have now proven to be new and not achievable by any other application in real time, as just another electronic live effect, you NEED the transformsynth and an isomorphic keyboard, because you cannot use anything else to change both timbre and tuning in real time and retain consistent fingerings, aka dynamic tonality.

Your points are hereby refuted.

John M

wow, impressive

Relating Tuning and Timbre

There. Read it or don't bring it up again. There IS mathematically and psychologically proven data about which intervals are most consonant or pleasing to the ear, and they are defined by the partials/overtones of the timbre with which one is dealing. But I obvisously don't think that these intervals automatically makes good music. Keep reading.

The actual interesting bit of that article is the calculations and so on, but the opinions on pleasantness are entirely subjective. Hell, I find "dissonances" entirely subjective and to someone like Schoenberg he dealt away with both words and settled for "sonance" since "dissonance" and "consonance" are within a hierarchy based on a tone organization system (major/minor tonality.)

I fail to see how that paper has anything to do with aesthetics and/or cognitive musicology besides the vague mention that they think consonants are pleasant and the whole bullshit with "tension" that nobody really defines seriously.

You attempted to rephrase my point here:

BUT THIS IS NOT WHAT I SAID. Good music is created by COMBINATIONS of consonance and dissonance, tension and resolution, or maybe unresolved tension, or even the lack of tension altogether. I understand that you cannot create good music with a formula. What I AM saying is that we should not be restricted to using certain keys for consonance and certain ones for dissonance or be forced to compromise with 12-TET. Given dynamic tonality, we can choose, as competent composers and performers, when to employ certain tunings, be they consonant or dissonant, on the fly, in real time. This provides more flexibility to you as a composer, and therefore more room for musical expression. If it is not your goal to have the most expressive potential as a composer, if it is your goal to be limited in your compositional possibilities, then yea, totally, I see your point.

Woah hold on there tiger. You first talk about objective pleasantness, but you don't see how that's a slippery slope by definition? You really should pay more attention to what you say. You say there's no formula to create "good music," but you already describe how to create it the sentence before that.

Ok hold on. What else is there?? I'm obviously missing something.

I'll take that as a joke on your behalf, since if you're arguing something like this and you're not aware of such basic music knowledge, I'd feel very disappointed. Moving on.

We ARE forced, by convention, to play in particular tunings.

Our common music making environment is so void of means through which one can play in alternate tunings that it almost is oppression.

ha.

ha.

If I hadn't found things like 2-d instruments and the transformsynth, I WOULD be restricted completely to 12-TET. I don't want everyone else who has not found these tools to be restricted, which is why I am constantly referring to them and discussing them, so that others have the opportunity to enjoy their benefits.

... Not really. There's plenty of people writing microtonal works out there, and certainly you're not FORCED to do anything. You just have to work harder to get your stuff done, that's it. It's not any different now either with or without the instruments and the synthesizers.

Plus, there are millions of ways to do it, both live and digitally. On top of that, just because you haven't really realized the options available to you, as Charlie pointed out, it doesn't mean they don't exist. Plenty of instruments are capable of playing different tunings/microtonal stuff, what's the problem?

You're blowing a non-problem out of proportion.

I have never said we should totally drop old instruments. I have made points against their ergonomics and points against their flexibility in modulation and tuning, but have never suggested we burn every piano from Rhode Island to California. My entire arguments has been about people opening their minds to these new instruments and methods, and to get them to at least recognize their benefits so that they can be considered by people who want to begin learning to play and compose music with a better, that is more ergonomic, inter phase.

Ok. Well I don't mind new instruments at all, I'd love to give the stuff a try if I could. I already said as much in the other thread.

Your point 1:

-Dynamic tonality is just complicated pitch bending that can be achieved by other means.

Response:

Dynamic tonality is NOT just complicated pitch bending. While every single note in pitch space defined by the isomorphic layout is bent in different directions by different amounts depending on its distance from the tonic in a stack of perfect fifths, the partials

( Harmonic series (music) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )

of the timbres are also being remapped so that they fit the new notes' of the new tuning being sounded to create consonance. If you don't understand this, you didn't read the first link in this post about partials and consonance.

This can not be done in any other application in real time. You could do it manually; take a recording and map every note to different fundamentals and partials, but this would be painstakingly difficult and could not be used for live performance.

Have you actually read my posts? I wonder. In any case, I'll reply since you aren't understanding my argument at all and you are instead simplifying it without the proper context. It's like this:

I don't care about the means you use to make your music using "dynamic tonality" in this case. If I didn't know better, it'd sound like very controlled pitch bending (electronic of course.) So, if I wanted to recreate it, I could just do it that same way and get a pretty reasonable approximation of what was done without having a clue it was "dynamic tonality" or any of that crap.

The end result for the entire thing is simple:

What formulas or how you manipulate pitch bending is not the point here. The point is that it all can be reduced to much simpler terms, without using new terminology or inventing anything. What your system does is just set up a set of parameters by which pitch variation is controlled, but at the end it's just that. Pitch variations/bends/etc being controlled.

Moving on:

"Unless you aren't aware you can "perform" electronic music just the same as you can any other type of music, this makes absolutely no difference in the argument."

But in order to use dynamic tonality, which we have now proven to be new and not achievable by any other application in real time, as just another electronic live effect, you NEED the transformsynth and an isomorphic keyboard, because you cannot use anything else to change both timbre and tuning in real time and retain consistent fingerings, aka dynamic tonality.

Again you fail to understand what is meant here. You can "perform" a recording, so to speak. So really, the fact you can manipulate stuff in real time is nice but it's irrelevant to the previous point.

Unless you haven't noticed already, what I'm attacking is claiming "new!!!" sounds and introducing new terminology, when I'm not seeing the point for its adoption. Realistically, all this deal is is simply a new type of keyboard and a software that has controlled pitchbending according to a series of formulas and parameters. There's nothing wrong with any of it, I just fail to see what's so new about it or why bother with calling it anything else than what it really is.

Your points are hereby refuted.

If only those were my actual points.

Once again you've managed to completely ignore the arguments made against yours and instead of actually provide a counter argument, you have just restated your original ones.

If that's the case with SSC, then you've managed to completely ignore the arguments I made against yours. Weird.

We ARE forced, by convention, to play in particular tunings.

Our common music making environment is so void of means through which one can play in alternate tunings that it almost is oppression.

ha.

ha.

If I hadn't found things like 2-d instruments and the transformsynth, I WOULD be restricted completely to 12-TET. I don't want everyone else who has not found these tools to be restricted, which is why I am constantly referring to them and discussing them, so that others have the opportunity to enjoy their benefits.

Pythagoras, Christiaan Huygens, Francisco Salinas, Gioseffo Zarlino, Andreas Werckmeister, Francesco Antonio Vallotti, Adriaan Fokker, Harry Partch, etc. didn't have these things available to them (btw, if you have to look up any of these names or don't know what temperaments go along with them, you've got a lot of reading to do, my friend, before you can talk this big game you've been talkin'... I'm not implying that you don't, I'm just saying, if you're going to talk tuning, you need to know them). Nor did anyone up until a few years ago. Even with the invention of the synthesizer it was still quite cumbersome. All of these super-easy, do it for you, microtonal resources being readily available is a recent thing (not that I'm saying that that is a bad thing!). Actually, it is kind of a bad thing to an extend, because if you can just click "21-tone Pythagorean scale" on your keyboard, you don't actually learn how it works or how to actually create the tuning. But that's not the point.

When I started writing microtonally I hadn't "found" any of that stuff either. I just read articles, did the math, and did it sans help from "2-D instruments" and "transformsynths". I was not "forced" to stick with 12tET, and in fact, despite my use of Just intonation, Pythagorean tuning, 15tET or 7tET or 30tET, I still come back to 12tET on occasion. You speak about 12tET like its this evil thing. Its not (don't tell anyone I said that though, thats like blasphemy in the microtonal world :laugh:). People are more than aware that its not the only tuning out there. Just because they're comfortable using it, enjoy the way it sounds, and don't want to expand beyond it doesn't mean that you or me or SSC or some guy in Mexico or anyone is limited to it. In fact, traditional folk musics of just about any region use non-12tET tunings. Including these here United States of America. How about those barber shop quartets that were so popular... and sang in Just intonation?

[...]Dynamic tonality is NOT just complicated pitch bending. While every single note in pitch space defined by the isomorphic layout is bent in different directions by different amounts depending on its distance from the tonic in a stack of perfect fifths, the partials

( Harmonic series (music) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )

of the timbres are also being remapped so that they fit the new notes' of the new tuning being sounded to create consonance. If you don't understand this, you didn't read the first link in this post about partials and consonance.

This can not be done in any other application in real time. You could do it manually; take a recording and map every note to different fundamentals and partials, but this would be painstakingly difficult and could not be used for live performance. [...]No acoustic instrument has manipulatable partials.[...]

First of all, you said "stack of perfect fifths", so you're talking Pythagorean now? Wait a minute, remapping partials? That doesn't sound so "natural" or "perfect" to me. Weren't you the one complaining about the "imperfections" of 12tET? And the defectiveness of meantone, which you say "force compromises"? Isn't "remapping" partials a "forced compromise"?

Also, "changing" the partials kinda means you're not using actual partials anymore, huh? You can't change the harmonic series. Yeah, you can move the pitches on the computer, I guess, but then you've got an "altered" harmonic series. So technically they're not overtones anymore.

Plus, why would you even want to? A clarinet wouldn't sound like a clarinet if it produced even numbered partials, now would it?

And for the record, you technically can manipulate an acoustic instrument's harmonics via, lets say for example, pizzicato on a violin, which forces inharmonicity. But that's a whole other topic, and not really what you're talking about.

Also, you need to get off of the electronic thing. You're confining yourself with electronics just as much as you claim 12tET does.

Your points are hereby refuted.

And how about mine?

Now all we need is Corbin's stamp!

And of course we need this to patch things up and make everybody resume composing!

Well who actually STOPS composing to lol on the interwebs? Not me.

And on a side note:

Anyone.. and I mean ANYONE at all, who feels like personal opinion is reallllly more acceptable than education (vague for a reason).. well, they have

And of course we need this to patch things up and make everybody resume composing!

Oh boy, McCartney always has a funny face while singing, but here especially so. :D Delicious!

:laugh: .... that's really funny, ... I've seen many threads where that pic would fit perfectly ... :laugh: