User talk:Rperlner

Octatonic Groove

Hi Rperlner, welcome to the Wiki 🙂 Thanks for sharing your pieces! (the 48-EDO version makes more sense to me) Best regards --Xenwolf (talk) 10:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

BTW, the page on the octatonic scale https://en.xen.wiki/w/Octatonic_scale looks very minimal at present, which seems a bit odd for such a widely used scale. Would that be the natural place to add my idea regarding partially detempering the octatonic scale (treating it as a rank-3 2:3:5:7:17 subgroup temperament, with 50/49 and 85/84 tempered out, but not 36/35)? What else ought to be added? --Rperlner (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, Everyone I've talked to seems to like the 48-EDO version better. I also have a 26 edo version I like quite a lot, which I'll get around to uploading eventually. Pleased to meet you. -- Rperlner

Scherzo in 26 EDO

Hi Ray,
your Scherzo in 26 EDO sounds great. The notation looks quite uncommon to readers of classic music but interesting. After a bit of calculation I found out that the accidentals actually cause a 1\26 shift. Notating the piece in "B" causes that no double-flats have to be used (also F# and C# would allow this). I think we should have at least one article about circle-of-fifths notation(s) in the XenWiki. Thanks for sharing. --Xenwolf (talk) 13:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
PS: the sixfold forte in the 3rd-last bar before Fine seems like a glitch to me.

I'm glad you liked my scherzo. I did indeed choose the key of B to try to minimize double accidentals. (Strictly speaking, anything can be notated without double flats, since Dx = Cbb etc. in 26 edo). Regarding circle-of-fifths notation. Is it not covered (albeit briefly) by https://en.xen.wiki/w/Alternative_symbols_for_ups_and_downs_notation ? Or did you have something more devoted specifically to the traditional usage of #s and bs in pythagorean and meantone tunings? (Note: There were a number of ETs the article claimed couldn't be notated in Musescore. I was able to confirm that they can be notated in the version of Musescore with the n-tet tuner plugin that I have, using the double sharp and double flat arrow accidentals. I removed the inaccurate sentences.) Regarding the sixfold forte. I did mean to put it in. Musescore just wouldn't play that note loud enough so I tried extreme measures. It probably shouldn't be taken as instructions to any human performers who might actually want to play it some day. --Ray

Removal

Seems that you summarized by describing what you did, unfortunately not why. Let me ask here instead: are multiple sharps and flats now possible. Where is the limit for this? --Xenwolf (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I intended to, but accidentally saved the changes before I put the comment in. These systems can be used in musescore. Musescore has double sharp, double flat, and double sharp and double flat with arrows, and was able to spot check that these work. The Musescore plugin documentation also says Musescore plugin to retune and pitch up/down notes in any EDO ranked from flat-2 to sharp-8. (Supports all EDOs from 5-72 except 59, 66, and 71. Also supports larger edos up to 117 that are rated with a sharpness of up to sharp-8). See https://github.com/euwbah/musescore-n-tet-plugins/blob/master/README.md

No need to apologize. Good to know.

Another question for refinement: Is there a way to use triple, quadruple etc. sharps and flats? I know that these are not available in classic notation but theoretically it's possible even if unusual to reach every note in higher order EDOs (above 35) entirely by stacking fifths. --Xenwolf (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any way to use triple/quadruple flats/sharps in MuseScore, and the same readme as I quoted before says: "Triple flats and sharps and not supported as MuseScore does not provide these accidentals." --Ray

Only double flats through double sharps are available as of MuseScore 3.5, whereas in edos with very flat fifth, triple or more are often required to access all the notes. As I said in Talk:Circle-of-fifths notation:

> Without higher-order sharp/flats, larger edos are very limited. 26edo, for example, requires Gx to Abb to access every note in the key of C major. Now modulate to any key with more than three accidentals and boom.

Fortunately, MuseScore 3.6 will introduce triple sharp/flats, but that still doesn't release edos as flat as 33 or 40. FloraC (talk) 05:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity, will half flats/sharps with up and down arrows be added as well? Those could be quite useful. --Rperlner (talk) 02:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I think these need to be finalized first, and as it stands, things are really complicated for EDOs that don't temper out the Rastma- think 159edo, which I'm trying to come up with a good notation system for... Oh, and yes, I do indeed plan on having my notation system use variations of the demisharp, sesquisharp, demiflat and sesquiflat accidentals- I mean, I do have a background in 24edo after all... --Aura (talk) 03:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Has anything changed since the state reflected by the last comments in https://en.xen.wiki/w/Talk:159edo_notation (October 16th, I think)? In general what you're proposing seems reasonable. One additional thing I might hope for, is that in systems that temper out the Rastma, the accidentals that differ by a Rastma be taken as synonyms of the normal quartertone accidentals by the Musescore plugin. I like being able to switch the tuning from one EDO to another and have it sound as similar as possible given the EDOs. P.S. On the subject of the Rastma, I recently noticed that the tridecimal equivalent of the Rastma, 512/507 i.e. what you temper out to make 16/13 half of a perfect fifth wasn't in the table of small commas https://en.xen.wiki/w/Small_comma and added it. I got a somewhat non-catchy name for it from http://www.huygens-fokker.org/docs/intervals.html . Any opinion on whether I could give it a catchier name e.g. Tridecimal Rastma? --Rperlner (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The most recent comments in the last section of the 159edo notation talk page reflect the current state of affairs for the most part, but something tells me we have yet to finalize things. I'm glad you think my proposals to be mostly reasonable, and I do agree that in systems that temper out the Rastma, the accidentals that differ by a Rastma should be taken as synonyms of the normal quartertone accidentals by the Musescore plugin. I'd be happy to get your input on this, and we need to get Xenwolf back into this as well. --Aura (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

You say that you like being able to switch the tuning from one EDO to another and have it sound as similar as possible given the EDOs... Well, I must point out that 159edo can pull some serious shenanigans on this front, mimicking 12edo, 14edo, 17edo, 19edo, 22edo, 24edo, 27edo, 31edo, 35edo, and 41edo- yes, I'm currently writing a song that changes between these different retunings mid-piece. Yes, that means I would like to see representation of both 81/80 and the rastma, and I do have some ideas for that- namely separating out the syntonic arrows into their own glyphs, which then can be combined with another combining glyph representing the rastma. --Aura (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Tridecimal Rastma doesn't sound like the most catchy name for 512/507, and "Rastma" itself seems to be related to "Rast", which is a term from Turkish, Arabic and Persian music. Therefore, we need something better, and I'll be happy to discuss this with you. --Aura (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding picking a name for the 512/507 comma, I have two lines of thoughts. First, In Pajara-10, I have found it useful to split the chroma in half to introduce 13-limit (as well as 19, and 23 limit) intervals. This seems most directly related, in terms of scale structure, to tempering out 512/507, although the 169/168 buzurghisma/ dhanvantarisma is also tempered out in the process. Not sure what name this implies, but that 13-limit extension of Pajara should probably be added to the wiki as well, although I'm not sure how to fill in some of the fields "e.g. Nice value" off the top of my head.--Rperlner (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

My second line of thought is that One might interpret Maqam Huzam as 1 - 13/12 - 16/13=39/32 - 13/10 - 20/13 - 13/8 - 20/11 - 2. This necessarily suggests 512/507 is tempered out and would suggest the name "Huzama" for the comma. OTOH, Huzam could also be interpreted as 1 - 12/11 - 27/22 - 9/7 - 14/9 - 18/11=44/27 - 20/11 - 2. --Rperlner (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I definitely like "Huzama" as a name for 512/507, though perhaps we should do some checking with those who have more experience in this department first. --Aura (talk) 23:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Do you have anyone in particular in mind? --Rperlner (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Ozan Yarman. The only problem is that I wouldn't know how to get a hold of the man... Regardless, he's definitely someone who would know about all this... --Aura (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

A couple updates. I see the fundamental issue as being whether the practice of Maqam Huzam in Arabic traditional music is implying 13 limit ratios. I already know Maqam Huzam is notated with quartertone accidentals, so this would be a fair reason for calling 512/507 the Huzama if the implied ratios are 13-limit. I think the clearest indicator is whether the interval Ed-Ab is tuned closer to 13/10 or 9/7. Unfortunately, actual pitch measurements of Arab rather than Turkish scales seem hard to come by. I found a couple of theoretical sources which would imply this interval is tuned closer to 9/7 e.g. https://www.alsiadi.com/Maqam_Huzam.html and the "Egyptian tuning of Amin Ad-Dik" reported in table 4.12 of Ozan Yarman's doctoral Thesis. However, literal 24-EDO would imply 13/10ths, and that has a long history in Arabic theory and practice (e.g. I've seen multiple reports that Arabic qanuns typically don't have notes outside 24edo.) Another point in favor of 13/10 is that the 9/7 tuning results in an unusually wide Augmented second from Ab to B (The augmented seconds in Hijaz tetrachords are generally described as being smaller than a 12-edo minor third, but this would be larger.) In any event, I may try to contact Ozan Yarman as his email is listed on some of his papers. His specialty appears to be Turkish rather than Arabic music, but he seems knowledgeable about both. --Rperlner (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense. I wish you luck. --Aura (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I suspect the correct spelling is huzamma. FloraC (talk) 05:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

A really catchy notation using = for tempering out an interval! Do you maybe have a good name for 44/27? I just created a page for it. --Xenwolf (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The name for 44/27 will have to be related to that of 27/22. I personally call 44/27 the "Lesser Alpharabian Neutral Sixth" with 18/11 being the "Greater Alpharabian Neutral Sixth". The reason why I would do this is because both 44/27 and 18/11 result from modifying Pythagorean intervals by 33/32. I call 27/22 the "Greater Alpharabian Neutral Third" and 11/9 the "Lesser Alpharabian Neutral Third" for the same reasons. --Aura (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

In line with the reasoning above, I would refer to 11/10 as being a type of "Undecimal Submajor Second". --Aura (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

As an aside, I do think it would be helpful if we also looked at Alpharabian tuning and My Ideas on Tonality for ideas on how to deal with interval names and stuff such. --Aura (talk) 05:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Sadly not, as seen in the alpha version of MuseScore 3.6. FloraC (talk) 06:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

You said that you left a comment on Talk:Circle-of-fifths notation but I don't find it there. Maybe you only previewed it but forgot to save. --Xenwolf (talk) 06:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

It is there, in the first reply to Aura. FloraC (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@FloraC: Oh, sorry, I thought your reply was Ray's. --Xenwolf (talk) 07:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Space Tour and 159edo

I have an update myself. I recently finished a song that I call "Space Tour". This song demonstrates what 159edo is capable of by means of a near-perfect approximation. I'd like to hear what you think of the song. --Aura (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Neat song! I like the idea of building to a large tonality by exploring smaller regular subsets. It reminds me of your earlier work “Anticipation”, which I also liked quite a lot. And I agree that 159 EDO retains a lot of the character of the smaller temperaments it is approximating. I also liked the general sound quality. What software do you use? —Rperlner (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Musescore 3. I'm annoyed about having to tune each note manually and not being able to get it exact, however. I'd rather just directly work with a selection of exact pitches for something like this. --Aura (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and I should have thought of this earlier, but when you contact Ozan Yarman, feel free to tell him about my work with 159edo, as he seems to have been at least somewhat interested in 159edo in the past. --Aura (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Diatonic Modes

Hey, I listened to your Phrygian Fugue in both 55edo and 12edo, and I have to say your approach to the diatonic modes seems to differ from mine. I also want to ask- what you think about Locrian mode? --Aura (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. How do you see your approach and mine to the diatonic modes differing? Regarding Locrian mode. I haven't written anything extensive in Locrian Mode as yet, but I have done species counterpoint exercises in it, and it seems entirely workable, at least for that purpose. I don't feel like I can really get a restful feeling on a diminished triad, but there's no reason you need to include the 5th if you want to rest on the tonic. I mean, that's the standard treatment of a V7-I cadence, even in the obviously-tonal major mode. Clearly in Locrian, a normal V-I cadence isn't an option, but that's true in Phrygian too for all practical purposes, and I clearly think you can make a song out of that. --Rperlner (talk) 03:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Did you know that "Space Tour" actually uses Locrian mode? It actually occurs in the following portions of the song:

• 0:14-1:12
• 7:30-8:30
• 14:52-17:04

Furthermore, as per my relevant comment on the Space Tour page on reddit, I even give examples of how Locrian chord progressions operate. What I didn't mention on reddit is that Locrian is even capable of circle progressions with just a fixed set of pitches if you play your cards right. --Aura (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

For a more thorough example of my treatment on the other modes, see my page on the matter. I'll admit that one of the sample songs needs replacing, but still. --Aura (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I hadn’t noticed that these passages were in Locrian, but now that you mention it, I especially like the choice in your 12 EDO section as a way to set up the 2EDO passage. I do have a question regarding your general statements about using Locrian: I entirely agree that an incomplete tonic chord (lacking the 5th) is a good way to establish a tonal center. But you also say that several other chords need to be incomplete (lacking a 3rd). I’ve generally found complete triads to be entirely usable (except for the tonic) in Locrian. Why do you see the need for incomplete chords on other scale degrees? Rperlner (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Voice leading is one of the major concerns, and, more important than that is the need to ensure that the Tonic still retains the feeling of being the tonal center. The way most of the other chords in Locrian are structured when in their complete form often makes it seem like some other note is the actual tonal center, and that's the sort of thing that destabilizes Locrian mode- at least to the ears of many music theorists. --Aura (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying that complete chords on other scale degrees aren't usable at all, but you still have to be careful with the few that you can actually get away with when the Tonic chord is reduced to just the Tonic and the Mediant. A notorious example of a chord that you don't want to have in complete form under any circumstances is the Submediant chord as it contains the entire Locrian tonic chord, and makes it seem like the Submediant chord is actually the tonal center. Another is the chord built on the flat-2 as that chord is particularly likely to be tonicized if it is in complete form. --Aura (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)