Topic: Raven Explore
2 scales
| File | Description | Notes | Period (¢) | Limit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| raven | John O'Sullivan's raven scale | 12 | 1200.0 | |
| raven_tuning_104807_104811 | John O'Sullivan's raven scale | 12 | 1200.0 | 7 |
Thread (10 messages)
From: Chris Vaisvil (2012-06-28) Subject: Raven Explore *Raven Explore <http://micro.soonlabel.com/Raven/20120626-raven-explore.mp3> * is my first public composition in John O’Sullivan’s new Raven tuning. You can find out more about his tuning at his website http://www.johnsmusic7.com . The piece is listenable or downloadable here: http://chrisvaisvil.com/?p=2427
From: Chris Granner (2012-06-28) Subject: Re: [tuning] Raven Explore Chris, At the risk of "merely cheerleading": What a lovely piece. Thanks for sharing. Consciously-tuned music's toe-hold on the doorsill of the world's ear earns a bit more purchase! -cg On Jun 27, 2012, at 8:40 PM, Chris Vaisvil wrote: > Raven Explore is my first public composition in John O’Sullivan’s new Raven tuning. You can find out more about his tuning at his website http://www.johnsmusic7.com. > > The piece is listenable or downloadable here: http://chrisvaisvil.com/?p=2427 >
From: [email protected] (2012-06-28) Subject: Re: [tuning] Raven Explore Thank you. I think John's tuning gets a lot of the credit. I'm one that says that you can bend just about any emotion from any tuning. (Look at all that has been done in 12 equal) However a piece like this would be a bit different in 13edo. Chris * -----Original Message----- From: Chris Granner <[email protected]> Sender: [email protected] Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 11:04:50 To: <[email protected]> Reply-To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [tuning] Raven Explore Chris, At the risk of "merely cheerleading": What a lovely piece. Thanks for sharing. Consciously-tuned music's toe-hold on the doorsill of the world's ear earns a bit more purchase! -cg On Jun 27, 2012, at 8:40 PM, Chris Vaisvil wrote: > Raven Explore is my first public composition in John O’Sullivan’s new Raven tuning. You can find out more about his tuning at his website http://www.johnsmusic7.com. > > The piece is listenable or downloadable here: http://chrisvaisvil.com/?p=2427 >
From: genewardsmith (2012-06-29) Subject: Re: Raven Explore --- In [email protected], Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote: > > *Raven Explore <http://micro.soonlabel.com/Raven/20120626-raven-explore.mp3> > * is my first public composition in John O'Sullivan's new Raven tuning. You > can find out more about his tuning at his website http://www.johnsmusic7.com > . > > The piece is listenable or downloadable here: > http://chrisvaisvil.com/?p=2427 > Here's a Scala scl file: ! raven.scl ! John O'Sullivan's raven scale 12 ! 113.7177 197.1342 312.1318 389.8232 498.0450 577.4304 701.9550 811.8100 889.5014 967.2840 1081.4929 1200.0000
From: Andy (2012-06-30) Subject: Re: Raven Explore in underlying ratios --- In [email protected], "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote: > > ...can find out more about his tuning at his website > > http://www.johnsmusic7.com > ! raven.scl > ! > John O'Sullivan's raven scale > 12 > ! > 113.7177 > 197.1342 > 312.1318 > 389.8232 > 498.0450 > 577.4304 > 701.9550 > 811.8100 > 889.5014 > 967.2840 > 1081.4929 > 1200.0000 > or the same again more preciesely for all those, that want to prefer the the aboriginally exact ratios behind the above cent approximations ! raven.scl ! John O'Sullivan's raven scale 12 ! !1/1 15/14 9/8 6/5 5/4 4/3 7/5 3/2 8/5 5/3 9/5 15/8 2/1 ! 15/14 ! C# ~113.7177 9/8 ! D. ~197.1342 6/5 ! Eb ~312.1318 5/4 ! E. ~389.8232 4/3 ! F. ~498.0450 7/5 ! F# ~577.4304 3/2 ! G. ~701.9550 8/5 ! G# ~811.8100 5/3 ! A. ~889.5014 9/5 ! Bb ~967.2840 15/8 ! B. ~1081.4929 2/1 ! ![eof] bye Andy
From: genewardsmith (2012-06-30) Subject: Re: Raven Explore in underlying ratios --- In [email protected], "Andy" <a_sparschuh@...> wrote: > or the same again more preciesely for all those, > that want to prefer the the > aboriginally exact ratios behind the above cent approximations I don't think there are exact ratios behind all of them. Another point of view on it would be to look at it as a modified form of a meantone MODMOS: -5, -4, -3, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10 in terms of fifths, which you could write Db, Ab, Eb, F, C, G, D, A, E, B, F#, A#; that's the gamut from Db to F#, except in the place of Bb you put A#, giving you a major tetrad on C. That's not quite the raven scale either, but it gets a lot closer.
From: Andy (2012-07-01) Subject: Re:Sullivan's 'blues' & Raven tunings, explored in underlying ratios -> refusal --- In [email protected], "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote: > I don't think there are exact ratios behind all of them. Sorry Gene, for the confusion: My remark should refer to John's second tuning down on his page: http://www.johnsmusic7.com/ Quote: " Blue Just Tuning 1/1 15/14 9/8 6/5 5/4 4/3 7/5 3/2 8/5 5/3 9/5 15/8 2/1 Blue Temperament (in cents) 0.0, 121.6, 200.7, 313.5, 388.4, 501.2, 580.4, 702.0, 816.9, 889.4, 1012.5, 1085.1, 1200.0 " ! SullivanBlues.scl ! John O'Sullivan's [2012] 'blues' scale 12 ! the last tuning on: http://www.johnsmusic7.com/ !there as:"1/1 15/14 9/8 6/5 5/4 4/3 7/5 3/2 8/5 5/3 9/5 15/8 2/1" ! 15/14 ! C# ~113.7177 [or enharmoic Db] 9/8 ! ! D. ~197.1342 6/5 ! ! Eb ~312.1318 [D#] 5/4 ! ! E. ~389.8232 4/3 ! ! F. ~498.0450 7/5 ! ! F# ~577.4304 [Gb] 3/2 ! ! G. ~701.9550 8/5 ! ! Ab ~811.8100 [D#] 5/3 ! ! A. ~889.5014 9/5 ! ! Bb ~967.2840 [A#] 15/8 !! B.~1081.4929 2/1 ! ![eof] But for his earlier mentioned "raven" i do agree with yours statement: > ...in terms of fifths, which you could write > Db, Ab, Eb, F, C, G, D, A, E, B, F#, A#; > that's the gamut from Db to F#, > except in the place of Bb you put A#, > giving you a major tetrad on C. > That's not quite the raven scale either, > but it gets a lot closer. > Quote: " 12 Tone Raven Temperament (12TRT) 0.0, 113.7177, 197.1342, 312.1318, 389.8232, 498.045, 577.4304, 701.955, 811.81, 889.5014, 967.284, 1081.4929, 1200.0. " Using http://www.mindspring.com/~alanh/fracs.html or http://superspace.epfl.ch/approximator/ it is possible to (re?)-convert the above given 'raven' cent-values into almost equivalent ratios, within an accuracy in precision better than 1-cent maximal approximation-error in deviation against the original values: ! rationalizedRaven John O'Sullivan's [2012] 'Raven'-scale rationalized by A.Sparschuh 12 ! 63/59 ! Db =~113.5642 < '113.7177' against original 28/25 ! D. =~196.1984 < '197.1342' 97/81 ! Eb =~312.0754 < '312.1318' 119/95 ! E. =~389.9545 > '389.8232' 4/3 ! F. =~498.0445 < '498.0450' 67/48 ! F# =~577.3520 < '577.4304' 3/2 ! G. =~701.9550 = '701.955' 179/112 ! Ab =~811.7530 < '811.81' 112/67 ! A. =~889.5188 > '889.5014' 278/159 ! A# =~967.2697 < '967.284' 28/15 ! B. =~1080.557 < '1081.4929' 2/1 ! ![eof] Circle of 5ths chain analysis: C: 1/1 |..............*(3/2) G: 3/2 |..............*(3/4)*( 224/225 =~-7.7c downwards 5th G-D ) D: 28/25 |..............*(3/2)*( 200/201 =~-8.6c downwards 5th D-A ) A: 112/67 |..............*(3/4)*( 1139/1140 =~-1.5c downwards 5th A-E ) E: 119/95 |..............*(3/2)*( 152/153 =~-11.3c downwards 5th E-B ) B: 28/15 |..............*(3/4)*( 335/336 =~-5.2c downwards 5th B-F# ) F# 67/48 |~~~~~~???~~~~~*(3/4)*( 4032/3953 =~+34.3c wide wolf-5th F#-Db sic!) Db 63/59 |..............*(3/2)*( 10561/10584 =~-3.8c downwards 5th Db-Ab ) Ab 179/112 |..............*(3/2)*( 43456/43497 =~-1.6c downwards 5th Ab-Eb ) Eb 97/81 |~~~~~~???~~~~~*(3/2)*( 5004/5151=~-46.8c narrow wolf-5th Eb-A# sic!) A# 278/159 |~~~~~~???~~~~~*(3/4)*( 424/417 =~+28.8c wide wolf-5th A#-F sic!) F: 4/3 |..............*(3/4) C 1/1 Especially here attend the three as questionable marked '~~~~???~~~~' 5ths: F#~Db, Eb-A# and A#~F within the circle. Ouest: Is raven-birds rasping-sound in nature even more clangourus than that dodgy-accunting? Conclusion: Finally now you convinced me, that I made some disputable-presumptions when guessing at random about ratios behind the Sullivan's above 'raven' cent-values. bye Andy
From: [email protected] (2012-07-01) Subject: Re: [tuning] Re:Sullivan's 'blues' & Raven tunings, explored in underlying ratios -> refusal Having read and reviewed John's original book, I'd bet money that he'd never have a ratio like 67/48 in any tuning he wanted to make. Furthermore, you can be pretty sure he wasn't engaged in any generator/period style of thinking that would get you to meantone. (This isn't to belittle Gene's comments, just to point out that it's a post hoc analysis.) John's method previously involved using simple ratios and then using brute force computations to find tempered values within 256:255ths (a little under 7 cents) to maximize the number of consonances in the scale. A brief perusal of his Web site doesn't show anything that makes it appear that he has changed his core method. In fact, since he has been open on his Web site about the scale values, I'm guessing that the ratios from Blue Just are the same ones used as the initial just values for Raven, with the exception that he has replaced 9/5 with 7/4. Regards, Jake Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
From: Andy (2012-07-01) Subject: Re:Sullivan's 'blues' & Raven tunings, explored in underlying ratios -> refusal --- In [email protected], jdfreivald@... wrote: >...for Raven, with the exception that he has replaced 9/5 with 7/4... In deed Jake, John has confirmed just that change to me in an private email: "...the Bb interval should be 7/4 and not 9/5..." > > 67/48 ! F# =~577.3520 < '577.4304' > ...he'd never have a ratio like 67/48 > in any tuning he wanted to make... The choice of the convergent in the approximation series depends on how precisely close one wants to fit the original data: 7/5 = 1.4 [~582.5121 cents] 60/43 = 1.3953488372093024 [~576.751009 cents] 67/48 = 1.3958333333333333 my initial choice Hence: If you prefer less accuracy than ~1cents, you can also apply 7/5 or 60/43 instead of 67/48. bye Andy
From: genewardsmith (2012-07-02) Subject: Re:Sullivan's 'blues' & Raven tunings, explored in underlying ratios -> refusal --- In [email protected], jdfreivald@... wrote: > > Having read and reviewed John's original book, I'd bet money that he'd never have a ratio like 67/48 in any tuning he wanted to make. Furthermore, you can be pretty sure he wasn't engaged in any generator/period style of thinking that would get you to meantone. (This isn't to belittle Gene's comments, just to point out that it's a post hoc analysis.) Indeed it is. You can refine the analysis by finding the fifth which gets closest in the least-squares sense to raven, which turns out to be 696.771 cents. Since the fifth of raven is a pure 3/2 and the fourth a 4/3, that makes the G 5.184 cents flat, and the F the same amount sharp, and these are the big errors. Of course that makes some other intervals of raven worse than the meantone alternative.