Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Gainable accuray in high precision-tuning was:Re: epimoric bisection 81:80

Expand Messages
  • Brad Lehman
    ... wrote: http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/message/77900 (That message has five pages of explaining and figuring.) Hi Andreas, I printed out your
    Message 1 of 69 , Jul 3, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Andreas Sparschuh" <a_sparschuh@...>

      (That message has five pages of explaining and figuring.)

      Hi Andreas,

      I printed out your five pages and I boiled it all down to one simple
      set of by-ear instructions that I had to derive for myself...and it
      has to be from a C fork, unfortunately, although I asked you
      specifically for instructions from an A fork. I then set it up on a
      harpsichord to give it a fair spin, and I've been playing some late
      Couperin on it (which, again, is what I asked you to explain, and not
      in generalities).

      Here's what I've got. These were the most helpful several lines from
      your five pages, where you allowed us to round off your 5ths to "only"
      four different sizes, instead of micro-managing decimal fragments of

      > F -1 C -1 G -3 D -3 A -3 E for approximation of about an ~SC
      > and
      > E -0.25 B_F#_C#_G# -0.25 Eb -0.25 Bb -0.25 F in PC^(1/12) units

      In other words, we're supposed to set it up almost the same as in
      "Vallotti", but make the core set of tempered 5ths on the naturals
      *uneven* instead of even. F-C-G get only 1/11 SC apiece, and all the
      rest of the syntonic comma goes into G-D-A-E, 3/11 per. And then the
      one schisma that's left over gets spread carefully across *four* of
      the six remaining 5ths. Golly.

      (And we're supposed to ignore the fact that for Neidhardt and Sorge,
      the 18th century experts, the schisma was the smallest practical unit?
      They were right: it *is* hard to control any 5ths that are less than
      a schisma off pure, let alone anything as fine as 1/4 schisma...or
      decimal bits and pieces grinding it even more finely than that. But,
      let's continue.)

      Anyway...I did it like this:

      C from fork.

      E in the C-E major 3rd nudged one schisma sharp of pure 5:4.

      C-F 5th one schisma narrow by knocking the F upward the slightest
      audible nudge from the pure spot.

      C-G 5th one schisma narrow by knocking the G downward the slightest
      audible nudge from pure.

      Set D and A so all three of G-D, D-A, and A-E are averaged out in
      quality. They're rough. They're as bad as almost 1/4 SC each!

      There's one schisma left to burn off, doing all the notes from
      E-B-F#-C#-G#-D#-A#-F, where E and F are the fixed endpoints. From E,
      I gave the B the very slightest smudge flatward (1/4 schisma!), which
      is just about impossible to control with non-threaded pins, but my
      wrist knows I did it. Then I made B-F#-C#-G# pure as prescribed.
      This left D# and A# to be finessed in between G# and F, so each of the
      three intervals gets another one of these 1/4 schisma smudges. It
      works out, but again it's all in the wrist: amounts this tiny are just
      about impossible to HEAR with any accuracy. A quarter of a schisma
      off pure?!

      And that's all 12 notes.

      I played through some music from the last four Ordres by Couperin, and
      I'll do some more. The results sound reasonable, although I can't say
      they're any noticeable improvement ahead of normal "Vallotti". The
      shape is almost identical, other than being done unevenly downtown:
      too much tempering in G-D-A-E and not enough in F-C-G. The several
      worst triads (B major, F# major, C# major) are still as bad as they
      are in "Vallotti", give or take less than a schisma. And E major, A
      major, and D major aren't as good as Vallotti's; the major 3rds are
      higher, and the D-A-E 5ths are rougher. Oh well!

      It's a passable sound, but I'd need to be given some compelling
      reasons why I (or anyone else) should fuss with this uneven
      F-C-G-D-A-E business downtown, instead of simply making all of them
      the same quality as one another. Why don't we just square off all the
      schismatic and sub-schismatic stuff, and give a straightforward
      F-C-G-D-A-E of 1/5 PC each, instead of ratios or syntonic comma stuff?
      The same major 3rds will be good or bad by virtually "the same"
      amounts, when listening to and playing normal 18th century music.
      And, after the harpsichord has sat there for an hour or so, it will
      have drifted off spots enough already that your 1/4 schisma business
      will all be negligible at best. How is anyone going to know, or care,
      that the little 1/4 schisma fragments are in the right spots around
      the back, and not between F#-C# or wherever?


      Meanwhile, your five-page (five!) batch of reckoning still doesn't
      help much with a start from an A fork, which was the question. (The
      note A is in the middle of the heaviest tempering....) Assume you're
      wanting some other harpsichordist to try this on a real harpsichord,
      but they're less mathematically savvy than I am. They don't want to
      know anything about beats, but they want to get it "right enough" so
      they can go ahead and play their music WITHOUT CALCULATING ANYTHING.
      They don't have Scala and they couldn't care less about any numbers.
      Please give some step-by-step practical instructions that would
      satisfy the accuracy you desire.

      Brad Lehman
    • Ozan Yarman
      Dear Mike, my apologies for the very late reply. As I have stated in my recent message to Margo Schulter, I had been enjoying a well deserved summer s rest. To
      Message 69 of 69 , Aug 10, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Mike, my apologies for the very late reply. As I have stated in
        my recent message to Margo Schulter, I had been enjoying a well
        deserved summer's rest.

        To answer your enquiry, here are some links to older messages to this
        forum on the subject of masters of Turkish maqam music:




        The names of some of the prominent masters have been listed in these
        messages. A search in amazon.com could yield links to the performances
        of masters themselves.

        Fusion type endeavours in "world music" does occasionally result in
        original productions worthy of approval. However, for a crash course
        in maqam music, you need to listen to acclaimed executants and
        venerable exponents of the tradition, not syntheses.

        Direct personal experience of Allah is very much ingrained in Sufi
        music. Most of the known neyzens in Turkiye are into tasavvuf. You are
        likely to enjoy the Erguner brothers, the elder of which, Kudsi, has
        done world fusion too if I heard correctly:


        If you are into the Turkish ney for the love of its trancendental
        sound, here are acknowledged quotidian performers of the instrument:




        On Jun 28, 2008, at 7:42 AM, Mike Battaglia wrote:

        > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 8:15 PM, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...
        > > wrote:
        >> I think the theory of Maqam music and other "ethnic" genres around
        >> the
        >> world are much neglected by the alternative tuning list community.
        >> Most of the discussions are centered around either historical or
        >> contemporary microtonalisms for furthering Western music culture
        >> alone. While I appreciate the contributions by the West to musical
        >> art, I believe the Western quarter (pun intended) can account for
        >> only
        >> a fraction of the actual music-making in the globe. One of the
        >> greatest traditions is right next door: A venerable monophonal Middle
        >> Eastern culture based on maqamat, destgaha and raga. This "exotic"
        >> culture has been influenced by a thousand years of Islamic atmosphere
        >> to inspire such styles and practices as Mevlevi rites, Qawwali
        >> performances, peshrevs, taqsims, gazels, etc... Your penchant to
        >> discover more of the theories and styles of exotic traditions is
        >> admirable.
        >> Though my experience is most inadequate to describe the musical
        >> wonders of the Islamic Civilization, my presence in the tuning list
        >> as
        >> a fresh academician should be construed as an oppurtunity to discover
        >> a glimpse of at least the Turkish branch of this grand culture.
        > Well hey man, if you have a listening list of stuff you can recommend,
        > I think we'd all love to check it out. World music is one of the most
        > fascinating things in the, well, the world. Mainly because you have
        > thousands of years of musical development behind most of these
        > cultures and styles, and so they are usually very much advanced.
        > Jeff Buckley did a Qawwali-inspired song, "Dream Brother," in which he
        > mixed pop/rock with traditional Qawwali elements, and it's one of my
        > favorite songs. I started looking for some traditional Qawwali
        > recordings when I heard that song, and I didn't really find much.
        > Any time there is an old, ancient branch of music that has reached as
        > high of a level of artistic development as the one we're talking about
        > here, people will be interested. I just think many don't know about it
        > yet.
        > One interesting thing to note is that the religious music of all of
        > the world sounds very, very, very similar. Perhaps not the music that
        > is "associated" with various churches and such - but the music that
        > monks sing, the music that is sung to draw people closer to the
        > experience of God.
        > -Mike
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.