the harmonic series, tonality, equal temperament, math, etc

[snyprrr]

OK. You're on. What are Schoenberg's beliefs? How do you know them? Give us some examples of pieces that demonstrate those beliefs.
Hmmm, why is it that the only time I see claims like this is when someone is trying to mock the people who supposedly make claims like this? I never hear actual composers talk like this.

http://pt.scribd.com/doc/100626266/Schoenberg


He says he was a 'monarchist' in one quote. I assume this is

waaaah!! It's early,... I'm not in the mood to prove HOW correct I am!! Suffice to say that AS HAD to use 12 tones, for the 12 tribes...

UNCLE!!

UNCLE!!



As to your second comment, are you SURE Composers don't talk like this? I have a friend in the movie biz, and she says that 'they' really do believe that they're doing 'God's Work'. So, and yes, I'm ASSuming, that most Composers are ultra-lib, panty-waist elitists at heart


oh, it's just not my day here

[petrarch]

Oh yea, THAT did the trick!! Remember the "music for prepared cd"?

You mean something like this? I also enjoy it:

http://www.youtube.com/v/HtRljr0PfeI

[snyprrr]

Does the Ring modulator need its own Thread at this point? Who's the expert on this most mathematically cool device?

[petrarch]

Does the Ring modulator need its own Thread at this point? Who's the expert on this most mathematically cool device?

I'm not a huge fan of the sound of a ring modulator. Essentially, it creates the sum and difference tones of the two source signals. In the digital domain you can easily reproduce what it does by multiplying the two source waves. Because it generates tones that aren't harmonically related to either of the source signals (unless the source signals are harmonically related themselves), the result gets quite complex very easily, especially if you are applying two complex timbres (such as from typical acoustic instruments) together, and therefore it will be virtually as useful as noise--which can be produced far more effortlessly through other means. Now, a way to overcome this is to not use two complex tones together: Just modulate a source tone from an acoustic instrument with, say, a sine tone. That way you can "refract" the sound of the acoustic instrument with the precise frequency from the sine wave generator, creating a "duplicated" wave, one in which each of the partials from the sound coming from the acoustic instrument will generate a pair of new partials, centered on the source frequency and distant both above (the sum tone) and below (the difference) by an amount corresponding to the frequency of the modulator wave. Avoiding the practically useless results of modulating two complex tones together is probably why most of the early uses of ring modulation used a single, much more controllable, sine wave as the modulator.

[snyprrr]

I'm not a huge fan of the sound of a ring modulator. Essentially, it creates the sum and difference tones of the two source signals. In the digital domain you can easily reproduce what it does by multiplying the two source waves. Because it generates tones that aren't harmonically related to either of the source signals (unless the source signals are harmonically related themselves), the result gets quite complex very easily, especially if you are applying two complex timbres (such as from typical acoustic instruments) together, and therefore it will be virtually as useful as noise--which can be produced far more effortlessly through other means. Now, a way to overcome this is to not use two complex tones together: Just modulate a source tone from an acoustic instrument with, say, a sine tone. That way you can "refract" the sound of the acoustic instrument with the precise frequency from the sine wave generator, creating a "duplicated" wave, one in which each of the partials from the sound coming from the acoustic instrument will generate a pair of new partials, centered on the source frequency and distant both above (the sum tone) and below (the difference) by an amount corresponding to the frequency of the modulator wave. Avoiding the practically useless results of modulating two complex tones together is probably why most of the early uses of ring modulation used a single, much more controllable, sine wave as the modulator.

Do you see me there?... in the middle of your paragraph?... I'm the one stuck in the maze awaiting a helicopter!!


I have a Ring Modulator on my Roland RT-6 Guitar Effects Processor. There is, basically, ONE knob, that goes from 0-100. With each click of the knob, the sound changes radically. Here are my unscientific observations:

1) At 24, 48, and 96, there is octave action, going from and octave below (24), to 'unison' (48), and then an octave higher (96).

2) At 34 and 62, there are much more complex, yet pleasing, harmonic things happening, sounding a little like a combination of Hendrix and Holdsworth.

3) At 10 and 80, there is a severe 'octave displacement'?? thing going on that gives a really cool deep bass sound to the whole complex sound.

4) Other numbers that just 'pop' into relief: 72, 86,... maybe 17...


The point is, these are the 'nodes' that 'pop' the RM into really interesting harmonic hierarchies. The rest of the settings are pretty brutal. Basically, you can play TWO notes 'in tune', whereas the rest of the scale notes will sound awful. Surely there is a '70s Bowie song that uses this effect...

This RM has a 'normal'/'intelligent' switch. When 'normal', the RM acts like it plays well 'in key', but sounds horrible 'out of key'; whereas, the 'intelligent' switch lets you play ANY note, regardless of 'key'.


Translating the sum/difference mathematics to acoustic instruments must be one of the pillars of the Spectral School, no?

[petrarch]

I have a Ring Modulator on my Roland RT-6 Guitar Effects Processor. There is, basically, ONE knob, that goes from 0-100. With each click of the knob, the sound changes radically. Here are my unscientific observations:

1) At 24, 48, and 96, there is octave action, going from and octave below (24), to 'unison' (48), and then an octave higher (96).

2) At 34 and 62, there are much more complex, yet pleasing, harmonic things happening, sounding a little like a combination of Hendrix and Holdsworth.

3) At 10 and 80, there is a severe 'octave displacement'?? thing going on that gives a really cool deep bass sound to the whole complex sound.

4) Other numbers that just 'pop' into relief: 72, 86,... maybe 17...

The complexity in the resultant sound is directly dependent on the source sounds. Without knowing what the processor is using as the modulator it is difficult to determine what exactly it is doing. Might be worthwhile feeding it a sine wave just to see what comes at the other end.

It does look like the knob tunes the frequency of the modulator. The octave steps in factors of two and the unison value at roughly the middle of the range are indicators of that behavior. The other values that produce pleasing results most likely correspond to relative tunings at simple ratios (fifths, fourths, thirds, sixths). There will be similarities in the results at symmetric points of the scale (remember that ring modulation produces both sum and difference tones, so modulating with a frequency f+x will produce some of the same results as using a frequency of f-x) and that probably is why you heard some of the same effects at 10 and 80.

Gold Wave for Windows used to allow mathematical operations between two sound files (I used it in the mid-90s, not sure if it still has that capability or even if it is still available), and it was the simplest way I found to play with ring modulation while precisely controlling all aspects of the transformation.

[some guy]

Just by the way, the person interviewing Stockhausen in the article James is quoting is himself a notable composer. One of my very favorite composers.

He's interviewing as the head of the music department of ZKM, of course. Here's an interview with him, which mostly focusses on his role as composer, though half of the interview did take place in his office at ZKM:

http://asymmetrymusicmagazine.com/interviews/ludger-brummer/

There are also clips here:

http://asymmetrymusicmagazine.com/reviews/a-ludger-brummer-miscellany/

but they are just illustrative. You can find whole pieces on youtube.

[snyprrr]

lol

I have one for my axe too (Mooger Fooger), and like The Master, I too .. love ring modulated tones ..

oooo... that looks like fun!! I might have to make my way to Guitar Center this weekend for some cheap stuff... and... PLAY!! Haven't played a Guitar Synthesizer in a while (I WAS the first guy on the block with a Roland in the '80s!!).

[aukhawk]

I saw Mantra performed live in the Albert Hall back in the early '70s, by the Kontarsky brothers, with the composer in attendance.

The ring modulators did rather dominate the overall piano sound (I was fairly near the front) but the performers tuned them with great sensitivity.  They were 'sweep' oscillators not switched as described above, and so for each retuned section they were adjusted carefully by ear for the correct musical effect, not by just looking at figures on a dial.
The audience was composed mainly of Indians who were there (as was I) for the second half of the concert, a performance by Imrat Khan.  Clearly no-one knew much about the Stockhausen piece or what to expect.  But as as it finished, the entire audience rose to a very genuine standing ovation - a large hall full of Indians in their evening finery, a rather spectacular sight and a great occasion.

[snyprrr]

I saw Mantra performed live in the Albert Hall back in the early '70s, by the Kontarsky brothers, with the composer in attendance.

The ring modulators did rather dominate the overall piano sound (I was fairly near the front) but the performers tuned them with great sensitivity.  They were 'sweep' oscillators not switched as described above, and so for each retuned section they were adjusted carefully by ear for the correct musical effect, not by just looking at figures on a dial.
The audience was composed mainly of Indians who were there (as was I) for the second half of the concert, a performance by Imrat Khan.  Clearly no-one knew much about the Stockhausen piece or what to expect.  But as as it finished, the entire audience rose to a very genuine standing ovation - a large hall full of Indians in their evening finery, a rather spectacular sight and a great occasion.

Watch out! James might start stalking you for a autograph!!