Alternate Tunings

First off, just one comment I want to make on a post in the previous thread:

AntiA:

Just intonation only has 12 tones per octave.

Sorry, what? O.o Educate yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Partch%27s_43-tone_scale

But, carrying on...

Microtonal music is epic. I think now is the best time to explore alternate tunings, when with the press of a button we can re-tune electronic instruments.

I am looking forward to hearing Ron Sword's microtonal metal band; Last Sacrament.

Microtonal music is epic. I think now is the best time to explore alternate tunings, when with the press of a button we can re-tune electronic instruments.

Agreed, we're provided with incredible ease in microtuning compared to what's been available before.

For anyone interested in application or theory of microtonal music, I'll recommend a few things:

1. Scala- An extremely powerful (Free!) program for scale creation, editing, and analysis. You can create Just Intonation, equal, non-equal, historic, nonwestern, and many other scales very easily with its graphic user interface. At the same time, you'll be able to analyze those scales for all sorts of properties with the click of a button and map them to your midi keyboard however you like:

http://www.huygens-fokker.org/scala/

2. "Make Micro Music" (MMM) and "Not Only Music" (NOM) Forums- dedicated to the actual music, as opposed to the theory. Some really good guys, and you'll find a lot of new music there:

http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/MakeMicroMusic/messages?o=1

http://www.notonlymusic.com/board/viewforum.php?f=23

3. Microtonal Wiki- A reference for microtonal music ranging from tuning systems to available microtonal instruments and software. Not exactly complete, but a good reference. I recommend checking out the stuff of linear temperament theory:

http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/

John M

Scala is absolutely wonderful, if you can understand how to use it. But it's not overly hard, and the presets are great.

I made sevreal non-octave just scales in scala that repeat at 35/18.

They are very intresting to say the least.

http://www.box.net/shared/aptziz3br2

Actually, I'm thinking that a scale that repeats at 63/32 might work a little better, a bit more of a subtle effect.

I made sevreal non-octave just scales in scala that repeat at 35/18.

They are very intresting to say the least.

http://www.box.net/shared/aptziz3br2

Actually, I'm thinking that a scale that repeats at 63/32 might work a little better, a bit more of a subtle effect.

Cool. I haven't messed around much with shrunken octaves much, but I have done some experimenting with stretched octaves. I've really only been able to tolerate either of them with stretched/shrunken timbres matched to the stretched/shrunken octaves, but your track works surprisingly well.

John

Cool. I haven't messed around much with shrunken octaves much, but I have done some experimenting with stretched octaves. I've really only been able to tolerate either of them with stretched/shrunken timbres matched to the stretched/shrunken octaves, but your track works surprisingly well.

John

Gamma tuning is nice aswell, with an octave of just 8 cents flat.

http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Carlos+Gamma

Gamma tuning is nice as well, with an octave of just 8 cents flat.

http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Carlos+Gamma

All of Wendy Carlos's tunings are unexplored territory for me, but I know a guy who's mapped his Chameleon sonome to Carlos Gamma and always makes cool stuff. He's the guy linked to for all the work on that page actually, check out the last one called "Autumnal Modulations" to see his most recent Gamma work which I think is his best yet. He's one of the few guys that is consistently composing new microtonal music and documenting the process.

I was so psyched when I saw the name "Wendy Carlos" in the credits at the end of Tron. I didn't even realize until I watched it recently that she did the soundtrack.

Who said Wendy Carlos? I like her stuff a lot.

I'd suggest to not only experiment with various tunings (both theoretically and practically), but to also pay attention to the timbre, since timbre, scale and sonance are related. Using a FM synthesizer is great, since once you learn how to program it, you can create virtually any kind of sound you want and match it to the scale.

Who said Wendy Carlos? I like her stuff a lot.

I'd suggest to not only experiment with various tunings (both theoretically and practically), but to also pay attention to the timbre, since timbre, scale and sonance are related. Using a FM synthesizer is great, since once you learn how to program it, you can create virtually any kind of sound you want and match it to the scale.

Yep, even with harmonic timbres, I find that certian timbres sound better with diffrent tunings/scales.

Like for example, if a timbre had a strong 7th harmonic, septimal music would be more consonant.

Although, I wouldn't match every tuning to it's maximally consonant timbre, because sometimes you just want that harsh (or sometimes subtle) microtonal dissonance.

I tried the transform synth once... Actually I never got it to work, trying to install everything you need to make it work is complicated... And I got a virus the very same day I downloaded it. (probobably a conicidence though)

All of Wendy Carlos's tunings are unexplored territory for me, but I know a guy who's mapped his Chameleon sonome to Carlos Gamma and always makes cool stuff. He's the guy linked to for all the work on that page actually, check out the last one called "Autumnal Modulations" to see his most recent Gamma work which I think is his best yet. He's one of the few guys that is consistently composing new microtonal music and documenting the process.

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

Carlo Serafini? Yeah, I love his Moonlight Gamma Serenade.

Although, I wouldn't match every tuning to it's maximally consonant timbre, because sometimes you just want that harsh (or sometimes subtle) microtonal dissonance.

I tried the transform synth once... Actually I never got it to work, trying to install everything you need to make it work is complicated... And I got a virus the very same day I downloaded it. (probobably a conicidence though)

The TransformSynth actual provides a tuning diamond, one of its two dimensions being the degree to which the timbre is mapped to the tuning. If you want fully harmonic timbres, you got it.

It is a pain to download though, I'll agree with that. If I did it right, I've attached a zip file of the entire package that you need to run the TransformSynth. Just drag the TransformSynth file to Max Runtime. The TFS is my main method for exploring microtonality, and I'd love to help you out if you are still interested in giving it a try, no download process this time.

John

Max Runtime and TransformSynth PC.zip

The TransformSynth actual provides a tuning diamond, one of its two dimensions being the degree to which the timbre is mapped to the tuning. If you want fully harmonic timbres, you got it.

It is a pain to download though, I'll agree with that. If I did it right, I've attached a zip file of the entire package that you need to run the TransformSynth. Just drag the TransformSynth file to Max Runtime. The TFS is my main method for exploring microtonality, and I'd love to help you out if you are still interested in giving it a try, no download process this time.

John

I think my issue with it was, the link to download Max Runtime was missing, so I had to get a diffrent version of it, and I couldn't find some sort of folder/file I needed to copy/paste something into... or something.

So really, I just need a link to the proper version of Max runtime. I appreciate your help.

I got the attachment working so if you want the whole thing in one shot look in my last post or go to this link:

http://forum.youngcomposers.com/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_id=11895

Or, if you'd like to go through the process yourself, here is the link to the Max Runtime download for Windows:

http://www.cycling74.com/download/Max5Runtime_43290.zip

And the rest you need is here, as you probably know. Be sure to download the toolbox next to "source code" (even though you have runtime), and use the folder called TransformSynth03:

http://www.dynamictonality.com/spectools.htm

They're also in the process of releasing their own microtonal sequencer, and are in the final stages of tweaking the synths built to work with them. Exciting times!

I got the attachment working so if you want the whole thing in one shot look in my last post or go to this link:

http://forum.youngcomposers.com/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_id=11895

Or, if you'd like to go through the process yourself, here is the link to the Max Runtime download for Windows:

http://www.cycling74.com/download/Max5Runtime_43290.zip

And the rest you need is here, as you probably know. Be sure to download the toolbox next to "source code" (even though you have runtime), and use the folder called TransformSynth03:

http://www.dynamictonality.com/spectools.htm

They're also in the process of releasing their own microtonal sequencer, and are in the final stages of tweaking the synths built to work with them. Exciting times!

Cool, I can't wait for that.

Thanks for the help, I have it running now. But, for some reason it won't let me drag scala files onto the program, the coursor turns to an (\) when I drag any file onto the screen.

Cool, I can't wait for that.

Thanks for the help, I have it running now. But, for some reason it won't let me drag scala files onto the program, the coursor turns to an (\) when I drag any file onto the screen.

The TFS reads .tun files, a different format from .scl. If you have Scala you can easily load the .scl file and export it as .tun, and that should work fine. http://emusician.com/tutorials/square-one-scaling-up/

I don't know if there are any .tun archives around but you could look.

I really recommend learning at least the basics of the layout it maps your QWERTY to though. It shows you how you can relate multiple tunings under similar patterns, and lets you apply anything you learn in one tuning to all the other tunings of the same temperament:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicki-Hayden_note_layout

The TFS reads .tun files, a different format from .scl. If you have Scala you can easily load the .scl file and export it as .tun, and that should work fine. http://emusician.com/tutorials/square-one-scaling-up/

I don't know if there are any .tun archives around but you could look.

I really recommend learning at least the basics of the layout it maps your QWERTY to though. It shows you how you can relate multiple tunings under similar patterns, and lets you apply anything you learn in one tuning to all the other tunings of the same temperament:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicki-Hayden_note_layout

It still shows an (\)

It still shows an (\)

Sorry man, don't know what to tell you then. You can always try the equal temperaments in the "linear keyboard" setting, or learn the 2-D qwerty keyboard which, like I said, I highly recommend.

Sorry man, don't know what to tell you then. You can always try the equal temperaments in the "linear keyboard" setting, or learn the 2-D qwerty keyboard which, like I said, I highly recommend.

Yeah, the computer keyboard odbiously has it's limits though... I don't know if they make specailized keyboards, but if you press certian keys at the same time on my keyboard, it confuses the computer and dosen't work. The keys also aren't velocity sensitive.

And Isomorphic keyboards are hard to find, I don't even know how much they (like the Axis for example) costs, because they are custom. I've seen you using two axis' on your youtbe channel, how much did they cost?

I never fully bought this whole tuning invarince thing with isomorphic keyboards, you can do the very same thing on a piano-style keyboard.

For example, to play 12-tet and 19-tet with the same fingering, you just need to map the 19-tet intervals to the closest 12-tet interval.

For scales with less than 12 notes, you just map the pitches to the closest 12-tet note, then add in enharmonics.

Also, for temparaments on the polar ends of a tuning continum, I wouldn't exactly say they have the same fingering, because something with the same fingering will sound SO diffrent. My point is, with very un-related scales, you can't really say that they will ever "Have the same fingering"

One advantage that isomorphic keyboards DO have though, for playing microtonal music, is that they typically have more keys per octave than a piano keyboard. (I think the axis has 19?) So, if you wanted to play in 22-tet, you wouldn't be able to use all the pitches of the scale.

Yeah, the computer keyboard odbiously has it's limits though... I don't know if they make specailized keyboards, but if you press certian keys at the same time on my keyboard, it confuses the computer and dosen't work. The keys also aren't velocity sensitive.

That is a rough limiting factor. But luckily the people who designed the TFS are trying to work around that as we speak. They just released an AWESOME physical modeling DT synth BTW, check out this little tutorial video they put out:

And Isomorphic keyboards are hard to find, I don't even know how much they (like the Axis for example) costs, because they are custom. I've seen you using two axis' on your youtbe channel, how much did they cost?

C-thru Music's Axis-49 is actually not custom, and they are being produced for a darn fair price considering. I think right now they're at $440.

I never fully bought this whole tuning invarince thing with isomorphic keyboards, you can do the very same thing on a piano-style keyboard.

For example, to play 12-tet and 19-tet with the same fingering, you just need to map the 19-tet intervals to the closest 12-tet interval.

For scales with less than 12 notes, you just map the pitches to the closest 12-tet note, then add in enharmonics.

That was my first reaction too. What are you doing that can't be done on a linear keyboard? But Dynamic Tonality **doesn't actually just map each 12-edo note to it's closest equivalent**.

It defines each note on the matrix of buttons as a product of fifths and octaves (think circle of fifths), and as you vary the size of the fifth every single note on your keyboard changes by different amounts in different directions depending on how many fifths and octaves it is away from the center. This is important because it is actually what defines the scales we use like pentatonic, diatonic, chromatic, and enharmonic: They are all generated by a continuous stack of fifths, regardless of its size.

For example, if you start from D3, how do you define D#3? Well, up 7 fifths and down 4 octaves. How do you define Eb3? Down 5 fifths and up 3 octaves. If you set your fifth to 700 cents then D to D#, and all augmented unisons, become 100 cents wide [700*7-1200*4=4900-4800=100 cents]. D to Eb, and all minor seconds, are then also 100 cents wide [-700*5+3*1200=-3500+3600=100 cents]. Eb=D# in 12-edo, generated by a fifth of 700 cents.

But look what happens when you move away from 700 cents:

If you set your fifth to about 698 cents (the fifth of 31-edo) your augmented unison becomes 86 cents wide [698*7-1200*4=86], whereas your minor second becomes 110 cents wide [-698*5+1200*3=110].

*D# no longer equals Eb!*

If you were going to map this new tuning to a piano keyboard, which note would you put on the note between D and E? You could just pick one of them (say D#), but then if you needed to spell a C minor chord (C-Eb-G), it would be wrong. You could just map the tuning linearly so that it takes 31 notes before you get back to a D, but that is wayyyy too hard to play. It's a lose lose if you want to play anything but 12 notes per octave on a piano because only in 12-edo are the enharmonic equivalents enharmonically equivalent.

On the other hand, look at this note arrangement:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/Wicki-Hayden_Musical_Note_Layout.png

There is a different note for each enharmonic "equivalent", and more precisely, you can define every note on the keyboard as a *unique* product of fifths and octaves from D

http://oi53.tinypic.com/2v2z98k.jpg

So, on an isomorphic keyboard, when you slide the slider to a value other than 700 cents, D# changes separately from Eb, and so allows you to retain fingering on the key surface. You cannot do this with a piano keyboard because it defines one key as both coordinates (-4,7) and (3,-5), where (x,y) is (x octaves,y fifths).

Also, for temparaments on the polar ends of a tuning continum, I wouldn't exactly say they have the same fingering, because something with the same fingering will sound SO diffrent. My point is, with very un-related scales, you can't really say that they will ever "Have the same fingering"

It does seem radical to relate 19-, 12-, 22, 7-, and 5-edo. But you can if you define each tuning similarly: as a stack of perfect fifths. You can then define the function of scales (like diatonic and chromatic) similarly across tunings because those scales are also defined as a continuous stack of perfect fifths. Then you can note the *radical* differences in the *character* of these same scales in different tunings.

For instance, the diatonic scale is composed of 5 major seconds and 2 minor seconds. As you sharp the fifth, the major second widens and the minor seconds flats. With fifths sharper than 12-edo the higher contrast between major and minor can be very expressive, and as you approach the top of the tuning continuum the minor second shrinks to nothing! This gives you with 5-edo. It certainly has a pentatonic scale, but some really weird harmonic functions line up in this tuning. Moving in the opposite direction, flatting the fifth, the major second flats and the minor second sharps, bringing the two closer together. The greater ambiguity between the two intervals due to how close in size they get can be really cool, and as you approach the bottom end of the tuning continuum they approach the same size! That gives you 7-edo where major second equals minor second. 7-edo's diatonic scale if funky because there is no distinction between major or minor, but you can imply one or the other with context.

One advantage that isomorphic keyboards DO have though, for playing microtonal music, is that they typically have more keys per octave than a piano keyboard. (I think the axis has 19?) So, if you wanted to play in 22-tet, you wouldn't be able to use all the pitches of the scale.

True, but as you can infer from above, you don't usually need tons of notes per octave. Just the ones that define the scales you want to use. And if you locate the intervals that generate the scales you want to use close together on an isomorphic keyboard, you get everything you need for microtonality in a compact playing surface. For instance, I like the sound of 43-edo, and I play in it all the time. I know I don't need to use every interval of the tuning to appreciate its musical properties, because I play it using my isomorphic keyboard.

John

Just as a sidenote, I don't use (and don't like) much of the tuning terminology that you use - I find it futile and pretentious, with MOS taking the lead. Talking about harmonic and melodic functions is also redundant; it's blurring of terms that sets some expectations, such as that functions depend on musical context. Harmonic functions imply functional tonal organization, while a composer could use tunings and temperaments in various ways. So this should rather be called harmonic and melodic relatedness or relationship, which makes much more sense.

Just as a sidenote, I don't use (and don't like) much of the tuning terminology that you use - I find it futile and pretentious, with MOS taking the lead. Talking about harmonic and melodic functions is also redundant; it's blurring of terms that sets some expectations, such as that functions depend on musical context. Harmonic functions imply functional tonal organization, while a composer could use tunings and temperaments in various ways. So this should rather be called harmonic and melodic relatedness or relationship, which makes much more sense.

I sort of agree, but... semantics.

Speaking of harmonic functions. I find that a iv has stronger tension (resolving to a I) than a IV resolving to a I. It changes the upper, soft leading tone. (this is my own terminolgy... I'll explain in a sec) to a hard leading tone.

soft leading tone = a pitch the approches the desired note of resolution by a whole tone.

hard leading tone (or just simply leading tone)= a pitch the approches the desired note of resolution by a semitone.

I find this makes a lot more sense than thinking about things in cadences, because you can analyze ANY chord progression, instead of just looking at what cadences are used. I find that lower leading tones are stronger than upper leading tones.

There is proboabably simliar terminolgy in the LCC, but it costs too much money to buy the book!

Personally, I would use as one of the explanations that the m6 degree is very close (frequency-wise) to the tonally more stable 5th degree. Psychoacoustically, this means that it falls strongly within the same critical band of the auditory system, so the ear wants to hear the 5th degree; there is a kind of tonal gravity.

As for why lower leading tones work better than the upper ones, I would again look at it psychoacoustically - the interval root of the 2nd is the upper tone, so by moving upward there is a motion toward it and not away from it, which is perceived as a stronger motion. Similarly, motions down by fifth have strong finalizing effect (as opposed to up by fifth), because the interval root is the lower tone. This reminds of Schoenberg's Theory of Harmony, where he explains the root progressions of chords (ascending, descending and super-strong), as well as to Hindemith's theories.

Just as a sidenote, I don't use (and don't like) much of the tuning terminology that you use - I find it futile and pretentious, with MOS taking the lead.

Why don't you like the term Moment of Symmetry?

Talking about harmonic and melodic functions is also redundant; it's blurring of terms that sets some expectations, such as that functions depend on musical context. Harmonic functions imply functional tonal organization, while a composer could use tunings and temperaments in various ways. So this should rather be called harmonic and melodic relatedness or relationship, which makes much more sense.

Yes a single tuning can be used in multiple ways but, depending on the tuning continuum and mapping you choose, you are pre-defining which sets of scales you intend to use and what mapping of Just Ratios you intend to imply. So when I say that "the size of the harmonic function of the major third lines up with the size of the harmonic function of the minor third in 7-edo", that is based upon the assumption that I'm speaking in terms of the the Syntonic Temperament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntonic_temperament).

In the Syntonic Temperament the the larger (major) of the two intervals spanning three steps (third) in the 7-note MOS scale (diatonic) is mapped to the coordinate (-2,4) and the Just Ratio 5/4. The smaller (minor) of the two intervals spanning three steps (third) in the 7-note MOS scale (diatonic) is mapped to the coordinate (2,-3) and the Just Ratio 6/5. Because these properties are already assumed I don't think I need to go into your (mostly semantical) specification.

John

I find it depressing that only three people post on this thread regurally...

What can we do to encourage other people to post here?

What can we do to encourage other people to post here?

Have tunings be relevant in the music I make?

What do I care if a solo performer uses one intonation over another? What thought do I give to the tuning of a piece with frequencies instead of discrete notes? If all the musicians of a group are in tune with each other, why does it matter if their A's and F's are a bit flat and their B's and E's sharp? Only increases the differences from performance to performance (assuming that you're not part of a group's standard rep...)

I always found talking about the relative merits of x-ET over y-just to be fruitless. It's just what someone decided to use at the time. How each became entrenched is a bit more interesting, but somehow, I just can't see the benefit of a 53-note scale... why limit it there in the absence of cultural implications (the reason to limit to 12)? What makes 53-ET better than infinity-et?

Have tunings be relevant in the music I make?

What do I care if a solo performer uses one intonation over another? What thought do I give to the tuning of a piece with frequencies instead of discrete notes? If all the musicians of a group are in tune with each other, why does it matter if their A's and F's are a bit flat and their B's and E's sharp? Only increases the differences from performance to performance (assuming that you're not part of a group's standard rep...)

I always found talking about the relative merits of x-ET over y-just to be fruitless. It's just what someone decided to use at the time. How each became entrenched is a bit more interesting, but somehow, I just can't see the benefit of a 53-note scale... why limit it there in the absence of cultural implications (the reason to limit to 12)? What makes 53-ET better than infinity-et?

Its all about new sounds. One of the merits of alternate tunings are the subtle differences that they impart to the music. E.A, Werckmeister vs 12-ET. In certain ensembles, (strings, woodwinds) these expressive, minute changes in intonation are natural, and not notated, nor should the be notated.

But then, there are sounds that are radically diffrent than anything available in 12-tet, these sounds are known as "Xenharmonic" (Quarter tones/neutral intervals, septimal intervals... etc, etc...) And unless notated, no professional orchestra would intonate anywhere near these intervals for expressive purposes.