SAKryukov

Introductions

Hello there! I have to wonder what brings a physicist like you to microtonality... --Aura (talk) 07:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Aura! — SA:

I'm not sure I'm answering in a technically correct way, please help me if I don't. To answer your question: will you take a look at my articles referenced on my page? For example, I can explain how tonal systems work and what part of musical perception is poorly natural, and what part is cultural. I invented some microtonal musical instruments with some exceptional properties. You can try to play them right on your browser, and, if you have a touchscreen, with ten fingers...

I'll first take a look at your Wiki page gladly answer if you have any questions...

Hm... I can't seem to find the articles anymore... --Aura (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

What articles? — SA

On the my page I referenced, there are three articles, under «Original publications», and historically first one under «See also» (this first one is not microtonal, but theoretical things are mostly there)...

Here:

Musical Study with Isomorphic Computer Keyboard

Microtonal Music Study with Chromatic Lattice Keyboard

Sound Builder, Web Audio Synthesizer

Can you click and see them?

Okay, I see them now... For the record, I'm trying to work with 159edo, and it would be great if we could devise a way to play with that in actual performance- e.g. different preset tunings for individual notes that can be changed on the fly by a push of two buttons that modify the pitch of any given note by one step of 159edo- and yes, I'm actually trying to write a song that uses an approximation of 159edo. --Aura (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The reason I like 159edo so much is that you have near-perfect approximations of both the 3-limit and the 11-limit. --Aura (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps we can discuss it later. I consider N-limit systems as artificial (no the system with rational frequency ratio themselves — this is the natural fundamental of the harmony —, but the concept of the limit itself and selection of the intervals for the tonal system, I am presently trying some research in this direction. I already noticed 159-EDO on your page, hard to understand how it's possible to deal with such high-order system, compose and play :-)

I'm working with the prominent theorist and pedagogue Valeri Brainin, creator of "Brainin method", predictive method of music teaching, developing musical hearing understood as musical intellect. He is using my platform and some instruments. He just reported his work at the seminar he created, "Mastering of complicated interval structures by ear". The seminar is remote, he is using the capability we devised for remote work. They record sequences and send/receive across social media. The typical task of the method is to predict and continue (not to reproduce). A student receives the sequence, modify it by playing over it and sends back, and so on...

See Brainin page on this wiki, for links to his materials.

Well, all I have to say about dealings with 159edo- or any other large edo for that matter- is to consider all of the pitches as belonging to one of two classes "main" and "variant", and since I have a background in 24edo, I've started working with chains of 3/2 and 11/8. Yes, I'm very classical-minded in terms of my music theory, however, see my page on Diatonic scales for my particular approach to diatonic scales. For the record, I do think of the traditional seventh of Ionian mode as being in some sense the "Natural Seventh", as it occurs in the harmonic series as the 15th harmonic, and furthermore, when you take the 8th through 16th harmonics, you can remove the 14th harmonic and still have a heptatonic scale that demonstrates Rothenberg propriety, whereas removing the 15th harmonic instead doesn't give you such a scale. --Aura (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I finally got myself some time to learn the material on your "Aura's Diatonic Scales" page, listen to the sample. Aha, now, I'm really getting into it.

It may sound trivial, but different interval sets for different modes resembles me my own idea on the microtonal instruments, before I started to work with EDOs. I imagined that the prospective instrument should have some control shifting from mode to mode on the fly. By this change, I meant that the keys should change their frequencies, but always get different rational-number (harmonic) intervals. (Of course, the idea is also limiting: for example, it is not suitable for the "atonal" music and similar less "classical" approaches) Now I'm close to final part of the EDO work, plan to make another release and started to dig into purely rational intervals, similar to your work. I'll try to analyze your scales. As I already mentioned, I need a tool to freely and quickly play with various structures ("play" in both senses of the word: quickly modify and visualize and play sounds), only then I can understand things. Anyway, thank you for the interesting information.

As to one of my microtonal instruments, one interesting property is that the change of EDOs is "locally conservative" to the fingering, can you see what I mean? In certain sense, it makes the change-tuning-on-the-fly approach not necessary, but I'm still not giving it up...

Even I think that the change-tuning-on-the-fly approach is still important- for both large EDOs like 159edo and for just systems. --Aura (talk) 07:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh yes, it's a valid point. As to the "large EDOs", I was about to point out, even with that "locally conservative" to the fingering feature, too large EDO makes the system not very manageable; here is how it looks: say, diatonic fingering patterns are preserved, but their locations in different octaves on left and right become more and more distant. Apparently, the same physical space can take less and less of the tonal range. That's why I was about to ask: how can you practically deal even with 53-EDO, not only 159-EDO? Maybe you have some electronic method of entering data without actually playing on any instrument?

For the most part, I myself do indeed work with computers to make the sounds I'm after. As to potential real instruments I can think of for actually working with 53edo and 159edo, I'm pretty sure that trombones, violins, electronic synthesizers and similarly designed instruments are all capable of dealing in something approximating 53edo with a few technique adjustments, so perhaps you could look into instruments like those. Yes, you'd need a series of register keys for temporarily adjusting the tuning of individual strings- especially when dealing with 159edo- but still, perhaps there's a solution on this front. --Aura (talk) 16:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Did I mention that there's such a thing as The Kite Guitar, invented by Kite Giedraitis, who goes by TallKite on this Wiki? --Aura (talk) 16:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

No, you did not mention, and I did not know this work, but I was familiar with a number of other microtonal guitars, unfortunately, did not have a change to play on it (I tried to play on a number of different exotic instruments, Indian, Brazilian, Chinese, the oud, even the theremin built by Termen (Leon Theremin) himself.)

Nice reference material on diatonic scales! Interestingly how EDO simplify things: for any 7-element diatonic system rendered as any EDO, it would be enough to describe only one mode, and then say: all other modes are derived by starting from the next element and then cycling through the remaining 6 sequential elements, and then shift by one until you get all 7 modern "natural" diatonic modes. It's remarkable that many musicians don't capture this simple idea from a school where they are taught each natural mode separately.

Thanks! I should point out that 159edo doesn't simplify things that much- only joining the Locrian and Lydian diatonic scales into modes of a single diatonic scale. Besides, when you actually look at the harmonic functions of the notes in the different diatonic "modes", you find that it actually does make sense to try and separate them due to their differing tuning proclivities. I still have to do some work on that page though. --Aura (talk) 16:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I already mentioned that I cannot even imagine dealing with such high number of microtones. I still have to figure out why it makes sense. (Any quick hints? :-) And yes, from the functional point of view, separate natural diatonic modes have distinctly different properties, so it totally makes sense to study those functions separately, absolutely.

As I said, in dealing with 159edo- or any other large edo for that matter- one of the most important things is to consider all of the pitches in the EDO as belonging to one of two classes "main" and "variant". As for why dealing in such large EDOs makes sense, I said on reddit that while some might think that the complexity of having so many intervals might negate the main advantage of an EDO- which is simplicity- tuning all of the intervals exactly is still a pain, and is ultimately unnecessary when you get to differences of 3.5 cents or less, as differences of 3.5 cents or less are virtually imperceptible to even highly trained listeners. Thus, one of the main draws for higher EDOs- at least for me- is a compromise between simplicity and accuracy. I should also mention as long as the EDO's step size is simultaneously above the average peak JND of human pitch perception, and small enough to be well within the margin of error between Just 5-limit intervals and their 12edo counterparts, you effectively end up with a decent balance between allowing the possibility of seamless modulation to keys that are not in the same series of fifths, and not having so many steps as to have individual steps blend completely into one another. --Aura (talk) 17:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Have you even thought about usable N-EDO systems, why N>12 are always prime numbers (I don't want to consider something like 22-EDO (which is very special) or 24-EDO (which has nothing new at all))?! It resembles the problem of remarkable Ulam spiral, as far as I can see, it still doesn't have a theoretical explanation. Before finding any literature, I started from the algorithm for finding EDOs other than 12-EDO using different criteria of balanced approximating harmonic intervals, and immediately obtained those prime-number EDOs. I called the phenomenon "musical Ulam spiral". And I never found any publications trying to explain it.

I must point out that 24edo is one of the first to approximate both the primes 3 and 11 well, which is part of why it continues to be special to me. As for the rest of what you said here, I don't know what I can add to this. --Aura (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I thought 24-EDO in principle cannot approximate anything harmonic what 12-EDO cannot. Do you think I miss something?

Yes. 24edo approximates 11/8 and 16/11 very well, and because of that, it does enable some interesting harmonic motions- for examples of some of these, listen to my piece "Folly of a Drunk" on my main user page and examine the score to see how this works. Also see this article on 24edo intervals. --Aura (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to remove my reply message from your "talk" page as redundant and replace with the notice that you have a reply on my page...

Please call me "SA", this is my nick well known by many (from Сергей Александрович, Sergey Alexandrovich, given name + patronym, a Russian form of polite addressing, neither mentioning of a title, nor a family name). And, by the way, typographically correct rendering for "--" is "—", coded as "—" "entity"…" :-)

Right SA. Sorry, I didn't have the link to my page on diatonic scales right the first few times. It's finally corrected. --Aura (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll keep reading your materials, I can see some interesting points. And if you find it possible to look through my articles, try to play the instruments (which does not require anything but following the links to the application in your browser) and give me some feedback, I'll be enormously grateful.

The first article requires a build on Windows, but 1) this is not so interesting, because it is not microtonal application, 2) this is just to download and build by one click. Not so interesting anyway, in the Web browser-based application (and Web Audio API) I support number of different EDO which can be changed on the fly.

I seem to have problems with these musical keyboards, because some of the keys on the keyboard that I press don't seem to play the notes in question. Also, I think the software should support more EDOs, such as 24edo and 53edo. On another note, some of the stuff dealing with technology seems to go over my head a little. --Aura (talk) 17:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

"Some of the keys?" It sounds troublesome. Do you mean pressing on keys on the computer keyboard (in my article, there is a detailed explanation why it cannot work perfectly on all keyboards), or on-screen keyboard? Could you provide exact problem report (at least for one particular case), starting from exact browser and system versions? — thank you very much.

I do mean pressing on keys on the computer keyboard. All I know is that when I press a key on the keyboard that represents something other than a letter or number, the corresponding note won't play. I don't know where to find the system and browser versions- I know that the system is Windows and the Browser is Google Chrome, but that's it. --Aura (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, SA, the operating system is Windows 10 Version 2004 (OS Build 19041.630), and the browser is Google Chrome 86.0.4240.198 (Official Build) (64-bit) (cohort: Stable). --Aura (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Great! Thank you for this effort! All this is perfectly usable, and if you only have problems with a computer keyboard, I would not care too much, there can be different reasons. In particular, in my article, there is a section explaining that in most keyboard people save on circuitry, so if you try a chord, you cannot play many keys at the same time; this is nasty enough, so it would be the right thing not to consider this keyboard as a serious device for this purpose; real functionality is based on the on-screen keyboard and touchscreen or at least touchpad/mouse.

As to the sets of EDOs, I would need a balanced opinion from a number of users. Most of my users only use 29-EDO, due to the influence from Ogolevets and Brainin. However, adding EDOs is quite possible and even ""almost"" automatic. Anyway, I'll be working at something else for a while, next major release is on the plan, and I'm interested to advance my research on the possibilities of purely harmonic (hence, not equal-division) systems. Could you offer some rationale behind your suggestion of these particular EDOs?

The rationale behind adding 24edo is that this EDO is what most non-microtonalists (to my knowledge) think of when they think of microtonal music- I mean, I got my start with 24edo for a reason. The rationale behind adding 53edo is that this EDO approximates the 3 prime very well (the difference between a 53edo fifth and a just perfect fifth is virtually unnoticeable), and Mercator's comma- which is the amount by which 53 fifths exceed 31 octaves- is the smallest comma forming the difference between a chain of fifths and a chain of octaves until you reach higher EDOs with unreasonably small step sizes. --Aura (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I understand. As to "most non-microtonalists", I also noticed the same thing — some naively thought of "quarter-tones" when you mention "microtonal", but don't see it as a valid argument for anything. One apparent reason of 24-EDO I can see is the melismas of Near/Middle East musical culture. I do appreciate this kind of music and enjoy it, but I think that for this culture, historically, 24-EDO is nothing but a very trivial adaptation of Western common-practice 12-EDO (division semitones into quarter-tones), and maybe more advanced tonal systems could better render the traditional intonation. As to your arguments of 11/8 and 16/11, perhaps I need to listen to "Folly of a Drunk", try to understand the function, and do some calculations. You see, when I said "Do you think I miss something?", I really meant I could miss something. When I started to discover and evaluate different microtonal systems, I mostly work by comparison with "just intonation" in a more narrow sense of this word, precisely this one, and later found the examples of interval relationships not found in this particular system. But this goes too deep in the nesting of the present document. Perhaps I'll add another header at the bottom, write a bit on what I think, and mention this on this line, in case you may want to comment...

For the record, I can already tell you that 11/8 has a function akin to a cross between that of 4/3 and that of 45/32, while 16/11 has a function akin to a cross between that of 64/45 and that of 3/2. Furthermore, both 11/8 and 16/11 are pretty important in modulating to keys that are not in the same series of fifths, and pitches related to the original tonic by these intervals are prime destinations for such modulations. You can expect to see more examples of such exploitation of 11/8 and 16/11 from me in my other songs- yes, even in my 159edo-based songs. --Aura (talk) 01:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I must admit, with my wanna-be-rational approach I don't recognize well any concrete rational numbers by just looking at them :-) Well, unless numerator and denominator are very small numbers and the interval itself is well-known. :-) So, to understand something, I really need to calculate things, to draw and to listen to some sample structure — all of it at the same time. I already thought that I came close to the stage where I'll need to get myself another instrument, some toy which would visualize and, importantly, vocalize some sequences and chords. Only this way I can approach the understanding of the functions. Such an instrument could be very useful to many other people...

Ah. I do know that some of the functions of certain rational intervals- namely tritones- are determined where they fall in relation to the irrational half-octave interval. This is how I separate the Antitonic intervals into "sycophants" and "tyrants". The fact that I'm one of the relatively few composers who seems to have worked rather extensively with Locrian mode (to where I now have a half-decent idea as to how to use it) has undoubtedly shaped my perceptions of tritones in particular... From there, I was able to draw on the fact that both 11/8 and 16/11 have relatively small numerators and denominators (as expected of the early members of the harmonic series and subharmonic series), yet, at the same time seem to have high harmonic entropy like most tritones. --Aura (talk) 02:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Aren't you mixing up something? hopefully just terminology? Tritone is strictly 1/2 of octave, that is, √2, apparently irrational number, not rational even in quotation marks. :-) I think tritone is very fundamental in modern and not-so-modern music, but it is much harder to explain, while rational ratio are apparently fundamental, and their role is on the surface. It's interesting how the concept of "correct" music changed with time. Until a certain time, even the seventh chord widely used these days were considered "disharmonious" and were banned, forget about the tritone... What you are righting looks very interesting though...

No. There are multiple rational intervals that are called tritones- see 45/32 and 64/45 for just two examples, or at least that's the case in English (I assume Russian has different names for intervals). That said, the specific √2/1 tritone- the half-octave, as I'm referring to it here- is definitely a special kind of tritione and is indeed very fundamental in both modern and not-so-modern music. --Aura (talk) 04:30, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Than on what basis 45/32 or 64/45 could be called 3-tone anywhere? How widespread these terms could be and what would be the rationale behind the idea to use the same name for different things? I personally don't use something only because it is used in some books or it is taught in some school, I only can agree or disagree to use some terms on some more or less rational considerations...

I know that 45/32 can be considered a tritone- albeit one made up of two different types of whole tones, specifically, two instances of 9/8 and one instance of 10/9. As for 64/45- well, we can say it falls within an unnoticeable comma's distance from 729/512, which is a Pythagorean tritone consisting of three instances of 9/8. --Aura (talk) 05:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Well thank you, you've answered the question the way I can clearly see the sense of it. But hardly much of practical sense — it only confirms by idea that musicians tend to name things in the most perverted (okay, we sometime call it "convoluted") ways :-).

I don't know about you, but it seems the main basis of labeling intervals ranging from 7/5 to 10/7 as "tritones" has everything to do with either being able to build such intervals with stacks of three whole tones (literal meaning), or, being really close to √2/1 (figurative meaning based on how √2/1 can be made from a stack of three whole tones in 12edo). --Aura (talk) 06:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I should start making more samples to demonstrate more of the kinds of structures where pitches related to the tonic by 11/8 and 16/11 prove to be very important. If you learn the way you say you do, then I suppose it's only fitting for you to have more of these kinds of samples, as I'm discovering that "Folly of a Drunk" only scratches the surface of what 11/8 and 16/11 are capable of. --Aura (talk) 02:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Would be good. As I understand, one problem is the lack of notation. Recently, we worked with Braining exchanging the sequences produced by my keyboard, as in microtonal EDOs it was the only notation. I devised something roughly similar to MIDI for the exchange. Yes, I've read on some attempts to establish some generalized notation, but I don't think there is something good enough to accept it. Or do you address this problem?

So far, I'm assuming that the first task is to create a set of proper interval names- yes, we do need to build on the historical note names for purposes of making our concepts understandable, and for that, I'm taking inspiration from SHEFKHED interval names, and you can see some my work in dealing with quartertones on the Alpharabian tuning page. I would also recommend attempting to build off of conventional notation for the same reasons, and I do have ideas in the works for 159edo notation. Yes, judging from what I hear you saying, there's bound to be problems, but since the diatonic scale is fundamental on account of one version's close ties to the 3 prime, problems related to this are on some level unavoidable. --Aura (talk) 04:30, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

One other musicologist advised me to write a new section in the notation site (I don't have time now, if you are interested will find out a link), but I answered that I'm not much interested. First of all, this is not very productive work, a big waste of time. More importantly, I'm the one who clearly understands that the modern idea of notation itself is totally wrong, and it is related to the fact that musicians never had enough understanding of the concepts of abstraction, standards, and the like. There is only one layer between the graphically represented musical text and the instrument, and it is beyond any reason. Apparently, some nesting levels of abstraction are needed. Modern notation is usually considered to abstract out concrete instruments, but this is not true — in essence, this is still the same kind of tabs, tied to the piano, and not to abstract tonal system. I know that many musicians find it unbearable to hear such things, but I know it's true.

On one level, you are right, but if you trace the origin of the piano system far enough back, you see that the idea for the default group of seven notes goes back to the Romans, who misunderstood the direction of construction and the arrangement of note names when they tried to borrow it from the Ancient Greeks before them. Regardless of whether you are going through the Ancient Greeks, the Romans, or a combination of both, one must realize that the Ancient Greeks (or rather, some of the Ancient Greeks) wanted to create a scale based on a chain of 3/2 just perfect fifths, with the resulting scale consisting of the intervals 1/1, 9/8, 81/64, 4/3, 3/2, 27/16, 243/128, and 2/1- today known as the Pythagorean Diatonic Scale. There's a reason that 3-prime-based just intonation is called "Pythagorean tuning" in English after all, and as you can see, there's a reason for the obsession with the diatonic scale. --Aura (talk) 04:30, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

At the end of the day, it is because of the Pythagorean Diatonic Scale's connections to the 3 prime that I would recommend we use it as one of the things we build our notation system off of. It may be true that we need to extend this chain of Pythagorean fifths out to where we have a chain of twenty-six pitches related by 3/2 fifths on either side of the starting pitch, but still. For the record, I should also point out that the modern notation seems to have strong connections with the steps in the diatonic scale, and, given all the stuff I've already said about the Pythagorean Diatonic Scale in particular, well, I think I've managed to recover some of the real reasoning behind it. --Aura (talk) 05:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, it looks like I pretty much failed to conduct the idea. I have to think before I could try again...

Maybe you did. I'm not saying there aren't flaws in the current system, but we do need to at least recover the logic behind the modern system and work from there. --Aura (talk) 05:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

There's one other thing you need to know... I can and will push back at times, especially if I think there's pieces of the puzzle you're missing. --Aura (talk) 06:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Is it supposed to sound negative? What's wrong with pushing back? I think people should assume such things in the very beginning. Thank you anyway. As to me, I have tons of patience and can be very boring, especially if I'm trying to insist on some point. If I feel somebody miss some pieces, I try to give a person more and more chances by pointing out the missing piece again and again. And after all, I learn a lot from people.

Good to know. At any rate, we need to create a new section to continue our conversations...

If we do, I'll create another section soon on one topic I'm interested in. By the way, I just looked at your "Folly of a Drunk" score and found that you are using not the standardized Stockhausen accidentals (which looks very ugly and poorly readable to me) for 24-EDO, but something else, probably those dots, or what? Is it a widely used notation? Of course, some notation for this particular EDO would not be a big problem with the ad hoc approach, but the entire idea of the approach would not pass for the general microtonal purposes.

If you are talking about the dots above or below the noteheads, they indicate staccato. If you mean the dots behind the noteheads (or rests), they serve to increase the duration of the note (or rest) by half of the written value. --Xenwolf (talk) 08:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Then it's like in common-practice notation. But then I don't understand: where are your quarter-tones, if this is 24-EDO? Or are they somehow implied?

Pay attention to (+50¢), (-50¢), and (+150¢), maybe there is also somewhere a hidden (-150¢) but I didn't find it yet. --Xenwolf (talk) 09:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Ha! Even though I expected some signs like those, and even after I've read your note, I failed to find them after several attempts :-)

But why are you using SVGs? There are just normal characters, you could just find, copy and paste them.If it confuses you, I'll bring them to you, could be useful.

The symbols may be contained in some fonts, but as far as I found out not all are supported by Unicode. If you have new information about this, please let me know! --Xenwolf (talk) 09:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Xenwolf, Unfortunately, you are right — these symbols are not on the standards. (As to "some fonts", in practice, it doesn't work as you say: for the fonts of wide character repertoire in general, Unicode is maintained as font-independent: the font will render what you need. Nothing prevents you from having an out-of-standard font, but such fonts cannot be used in public interchange. However there are very few well-known fonts of this kind, like Webdings, Wingdings, still not a good choice.)

I know that I can read the PDF files because my computer has Musescore 3, and thus, it supports all of the associated fonts, I mean, Musescore is the program I used to write "Folly of a Drunk" in the first place. --Aura (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Safe to say all of us here on the Xenharmonic Wiki need to know about these kinds of problems. --Aura (talk) 16:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

For the record, if you're interested in advancing your research on Just Intonation, you might want to check out what I'm doing for Alpharabian tuning. --Aura (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Most certainly, I'll try to understand this stuff. I already noticed this page, did not yet realize what it is about. If you don't mind, let me ask you if I have questions — thank you!

Indeed. I do know I need to do some work on this front. --Aura (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Folly of a Drunk

Have you had a chance to listen to "Folly of a Drunk" yet? --Aura (talk) 06:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes! Very interesting!

I'm glad you think so! --Aura (talk) 16:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Aura's Diatonic Scales

Look, by this time I've read your "Aura's Diatonic Scales" thoroughly enough and almost realized how those scales and modes work.

(Do you know the exact linguistic term for your manner of naming in the section "Definitions of Scale Degree Name"? Macaronic language. :-)

Okay, but, as I say, to feel how everything works functionally, I really need to visualize and play using these scales, and I realized it could be just about a couple of working days to re-work it into the playing instrument, based on my existing platform.

That's good to know. --Aura (talk) 16:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

So, let's say your advice to pay attention to your work was convincing enough. For a while, I'll set aside part of my research as your scales could be a better starting point for a real instrument, to say the least.

What do you mean here? --Aura (talk) 16:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

It's a long story, my research, but I developed certain things like algebra of rational numbers (not so trivial thing as it may seem) and sets of intervals and started to play with different tone systems and realized I need to visualize it and make it sound, but still thinking about what I want to get. But then I realized that I should better first implement you set of diatonic scales and modes as you describe it on your page. I think I got a very good idea on the keyboard layout and some features and understanding.

Maybe, but if you want more, as you seem to say, we need to cover more of the modes I know. --Aura (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

For example, let me ask you: can you, for example, having a simple composition, introduce a harmonic modulation by moving from one scale to another in the same piece? I think it is possible. Anyway, it's easier to implement and show than to explain. :-)

Yes, it is possible. However, don't be surprised if I also throw in modulation by 11/8 or 16/11- seriously, I like these two intervals for modulation to keys that are not in the same series of fifths... --Aura (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I actually want something more than a set of diatonic scales, but it maybe early to discuss it now.

Depends. I can also deal in Melodic Minor modes (think of the base mode as being like Major only with a flat third), Harmonic Minor modes, Harmonic Major modes and Neapolitan Modes to some extent. Furthermore, I do know a few things about Overtonal Acoustic modes (the base mode consists of the intervals 1/1, 9/8, 5/4, 11/8, 3/2, 13/8, 15/8, and 2/1), and Undertonal Acoustic modes (the base mode consists of the intervals 1/1, 16/15, 16/13, 4/3, 16/11, 8/5, 16/9, and 2/1), as well as the Neutral Paradiatonic Modes. I can think of two other sets of proper modes with supermajor and subminor chords, but I currently can't think of a good name for them at the moment... --Aura (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

By the way, are you familiar with Harry Partch "tonality diamond" approach ("otonality", "utonality") and his instruments? If you are, do you have your opinion on this matter? I once found it interesting but a closer look made me very skeptical about it.

Harry Partch's work on the idea of Otonality and Utonality has actually been an influence for me, but so too has the work of Hugo Riemann. I don't know what to say about Partch's work on the tonality diamond and his instruments, however, I do disagree with his choices in terms of preferred EDO from the sounds of things. --Aura (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Sure. Thank you for your answer and opinion. And I do have some reasons to be skeptical about the diamond approach, but I also see the difficulties in the approaches to the construction of alternative rational ("harmonic", "just") systems. At the same time, the diatonic scales seem to be limiting to some near-classical structures; and there are many works beyond that.

It's true that the diatonic scales are limiting by themselves, which is why I'm learning to deal with the other types of modes I've mentioned. Yes, I have a very strong preference for tonal music, but that doesn't stop me from pushing the boundaries in other areas- especially the idea of treble-down tonality... --Aura (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I think I perfectly understand. I also have strong preference for tonal music and something very close to classics (and I know microtonal field mostly theoretically and more from the fundamental and formal side of it, very little about music itself) but feel a strong appeal to pushing the boundaries.

I'm curious... What is it about my diatonic scale system that appeals to you? It's true that in addition to the diatonic scales, we need to cover the other scales I've mentioned, but still... --Aura (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

First of all, the way you put it reminds me of my old tune-on-the-fly idea and inspired another idea of approaching from a different side. This is related to the problem of the impossibility of transpositions and harmonic modulation (using traditional fixed-tune instrument) with just intonation, that is, the traditional instrument should be re-tuned to play with a different scale. Now, as I already design non-sequential keyboards, instead of re-tune I can simply create a keyboard where all 7 scales are presented at the same time in rows. Another idea would be to assign the individual transposition values to each row (representing one of 7 scales), which also should be shifted on the fly. Now (as I already asked you), here is my question for you: do you agree that it is possible to combine several fragments of musical motion with different scales in one piece of music? If you agree, we could practically overcome the barrier: we could have the instrument playing purely harmonic intervals "locally", and, at the same time, capable of harmonic modulation and other motion beyond the usual just-intonation scope. What do you think?

Judging from the way you worded the question the first time, I'd have to say yes, and that it's relatively easy as long as we keep the same Tonic pitch. I'll see if I can write some examples for you some time today. However, changing the Tonic pitch is another story, and this will require some more advanced thinking. --Aura (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I also wanted to ask you: how original is your design of diatonic scales? Apparently, special-case mixolydian fully matches known just intonation, it has to, but other scales have different sets of ratio. What part of it you personally designed or invented?

I'd wager that it's not all that original- I mean, the elements were all there before I came along... My preference for 27/16 over of the more common 5/3 as the interval between the Tonic and the Major Sixth scale degree is one of the hallmarks of my style, however, I must point out that I've encountered other microtonalists on reddit who have made mention of the usage of 27/16 in place of 5/3, and that this same sort of thing is sometimes seen in Indian music. Perhaps more unexpected is my preference for 77/64 over of the more common 6/5 as the interval between the Tonic and the Minor Third scale degree, and this relates back to my liking of 11/8, 16/11, 7/4, 8/7, 55/32 and 64/55 as accidentals, as well as the additional use of 11/8 and 16/11 as a basis for modulation. Aside from that, the only thing I can think of that sets my style apart is that unlike a number of microtonalists, I work with a fixed set of pitches and pitch intervals for any given key and mode unless I deliberately try to either use an accidental or modulate. --Aura (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh, no doubt. I mean the overall design of the entire system. No one would question if you invented the intervals themselves. I only mean the design of the set, if you've chosen a specific interval set for some of the scales to implement certain function of each degree. I do realize that some scales, by the very approach you use, are just bound to be well-known, and some other ones might be well-known in most of the degrees. Would it be safe to say that the overall design and the decision is your original?

In that case, the only things that might possibly be anything close to original about the design of the set is the use of 77/64 as the minor third above the Tonic in place of 6/5 in order to foster better connectivity between the Tonic and the Minor Third scale degree, and, the deliberate usage of the 40/27 interval between the Major Sixth and the Major Third scale degree above it in order to create a subtle bit of tension in the music and bring out the Contramediant function of the Major Sixth scale degree. --Aura (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, this is fine by me. This is why I was asking: when I start to develop another instrument application, would it be more appropriate to call it something like "Aura Microtonal Diatonic Keyboard" (or based on your real name), or it has to be something else? Please advise. Note that this is open-source development, so, for example, the file names appear to all the public at a very early stage of the development. — SA, 22:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

To be frank, it would be better for the instrument name to not reference me, as I don't want to accidentally claim credit for something that's not completely original. Given the selection of pitches we want for this keyboard (which I mention below), we probably need to come up with a name for this keyboard based on the properties of those intervals- something like "Connectivity Microtonal Keyboard" would suffice, since we want more than just the diatonic scales. --Aura (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

This is also perfectly fine. It won't prevent me from crediting your work in an article and/or the product credits (unless we decide to get in some collaboration to do some joint work). But then, why "Connectivity" and why not "Diatonic"? Here is the thing: "we want" is not a sufficient reason, the work should not claim any more than it actually does. At this stage, it has to be bound to "microtonal diatonic". If it goes beyond that, there are legitimate ways to reflect this fact: 1) re-naming of the product or just some title information, 2) adding new product or a component... SA, 23:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

With the name "Connectivity", I'm trying to say something specific about the nature of the pitch selection- namely referencing the fact that each pitch class on the keyboard belongs to either the Overtone Series or the Undertone Series of the Tonic, which is a property I call "connectivity". Also, I'm hoping there would actually be additional components on the keyboard so that we can play more than just the intervals from my diatonic scales which we are using as the starting point. I mean, out of the selection of pitches for the keyboard that I proposed below, 33/32, 35/32, 8/7, 64/55, 39/32, 16/13, 128/99, 11/8, 16/11, 99/64, 13/8, 64/39, 55/32, 7/4, 64/35 and 64/33 are not actually diatonic intervals at all; instead, they are what I call "paradiatonic" intervals- microtonal intervals that are good for playing alongside the diatonic intervals but which have their own distinct functions and properties relative to Tonic. --Aura (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure that "Connectivity" will be not understood by most users. Paradoxically, using the word "Paradiatonic" is pretty good for the use in a name/title. I can explain it. I assume people playing on such exotic instruments usually know both "para-" and "diatonic", so they will read the entire word. It's not a problem that the entire word is totally unknown, it can only boost curiosity. Some well-known word like "connectivity" implies very many meanings, and this is what can puzzle people and can be perceived as faceless. (Why did you mention 7/4? You don't have it in your scales on this page. This is one of the intervals I really want to have, in some, well, totally non-diatonic systems.) Anyway, thank you for another idea. I would greatly appreciate some more.

For your information, I'm much less of an idea generator and much more of a one who discovers ideas brought by other people. It happened many time when some person could not realize the value of her/his own idea and I was the one to discover it. :-) SA, 23:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

But first of all, I am interested to know if you agree with my statement that you can mix fragments with different scales in one music piece? Sorry in this concern looks either too trivial to you, or not clear.

It doesn't look too trivial to me at all, and yes, I have tried to answer this question before. In fact, I'm actually now trying to write a music piece that utilizes different sections with different tonalities (I think that's what you call them)- you, know, I'm talking about a piece with one section in B Dorian and another section in B Locrian. --Aura (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, this is quite enough for me for now, and sorry if I failed to figure the answer before. Here is my idea: I'm thinking about solving the more difficult problem of playing the instrument, yes, of a multi-tonal piece right at the level of the instrument. Instead of tune-on-the-fly, I could implement a light weight version of it more feasible for the performer. Let's say, for simplicity, you are preparing to play a piece with the harmonic modulations using only two tonalities. Then you use two keyboard rows, one implementing one of your scales, another — another one, and you can also transpose one or both of them to your convenience. At the moment of the modulation, the performer simply shifts fingering to another row. Think of it as a multi-manual organ, only with individual tuning on each manual... In this simple case, you don't switch anything during the performance, you adjust something before you play. What would you say about this idea? — SA, 22:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

It's a start, but this would only be fitting when you're changing Tonics, after all, B Dorian and B Locrian use the same Tonic, which is B-Natural. Since this is the case, we could have each octave of each keyboard have access to pitches relating to the Tonic by the following intervals: 1/1, 33/32, 256/243, 16/15, 35/32, 9/8, 8/7, 64/55, 32/27, 77/64, 39/32, 16/13, 5/4, 81/64, 128/99, 4/3, 11/8, 45/32, 64/45, 16/11, 3/2, 99/64, 128/81, 8/5, 13/8, 64/39, 128/77, 27/16, 55/32, 7/4, 16/9, 64/35, 15/8, 243/128, 64/33, and finally, 2/1. This is perhaps the best pitch selection I can think of for the kinds of things I would try. --Aura (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Javascript

Per-user scripts should be enabled in the wiki, but these are not restricted to pages but take effect on every page. Please read the details in mw: Manual:Interface/JavaScript #Personal scripts. (I'm not totally sure about it right now because we had a wiki upgrade from 1.31 to 1.35 in the last days.) --Xenwolf (talk) 08:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! It was just my test.

That's what I thought 🙂. As I found out, user scripts are enabled. See User:Xenwolf/vector.js for a small example. I'm not sure if let is supported now (there was/is an issue) but const definitively is.
--Xenwolf (talk) 09:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
PS: signing - even on your user talk - would make things easier. And if you don't like the double hyphen, you may use — or — as well, the magic starts only in the tildes. It's also possible to heavily customize you signature.
See mw: Help:Signatures #Customized signatures for a detailed description.
--Xenwolf (talk) 09:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)