Tuning choice paralysis: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
=== The primary & specialist solution === | === The primary & specialist solution === | ||
For a composer with sufficient experience in microtuning, my solution is to have a '''primary tuning system''', which is the default choice most of the time. This is the one that you use as much like 12edo as possible; the one you keep coming back to, that feels like it can express anything, that you know better than any other. Mine is 37edo; it's complicated, but I could find a good ternary scale for just about anything once I knew how. Edo multiplication (74 and 111) | For a composer with sufficient experience in microtuning, my solution is to have a '''primary tuning system''', which is the default choice most of the time. This is the one that you use as much like 12edo as possible; the one you keep coming back to, that feels like it can express anything, that you know better than any other. Mine is 37edo; it's complicated, but I could find a good ternary scale for just about anything once I knew how. Edo multiplication (74 and 111) fills the gaps in intervals and allows it to approximate the structures of other tunings (31+43 and 53+58). For good candidates for a primary tuning, see [[tuning recommendations for beginners]]. | ||
I'm also not advocating for using one tuning forever. No matter how many ternary scales I have or how large I multiply my main edo, other tunings have two massive advantages: simplicity and specific generator ranges. I suggest using a reasonably small edo or similar when you have a clear and specific concept for how a piece should be tuned, which I call a '''specialist tuning'''. For example, I use 25edo for primarily antidiatonic pieces. It simplifies the interactions compared to the ternary equivalent in 37edo and requires fewer notes per octave at the expense of versatility, but in this case versatility is not necessary. My usage of 18edo takes advantage of how restrictive it is, forcing everything into oneirotonic and smitonic frameworks. | I'm also not advocating for using one tuning forever. No matter how many ternary scales I have or how large I multiply my main edo, other tunings have two massive advantages: simplicity and specific generator ranges. I suggest using a reasonably small edo or similar when you have a clear and specific concept for how a piece should be tuned, which I call a '''specialist tuning'''. For example, I use 25edo for primarily antidiatonic pieces. It simplifies the interactions compared to the ternary equivalent in 37edo and requires fewer notes per octave at the expense of versatility, but in this case versatility is not necessary. My usage of 18edo takes advantage of how restrictive it is, forcing everything into oneirotonic and smitonic frameworks. | ||
Revision as of 16:45, 29 October 2026
Tuning choice paralysis or just tuning paralysis is a term for the effects of having too many tuning systems and intervals available.
Ground's perspective
I was a 12edo composer with a similar style for years before getting into microtuning. I've noticed that my music has stagnated, while nearly all the progress I've made in the past several years is tuning-related.
The primary & specialist solution
For a composer with sufficient experience in microtuning, my solution is to have a primary tuning system, which is the default choice most of the time. This is the one that you use as much like 12edo as possible; the one you keep coming back to, that feels like it can express anything, that you know better than any other. Mine is 37edo; it's complicated, but I could find a good ternary scale for just about anything once I knew how. Edo multiplication (74 and 111) fills the gaps in intervals and allows it to approximate the structures of other tunings (31+43 and 53+58). For good candidates for a primary tuning, see tuning recommendations for beginners.
I'm also not advocating for using one tuning forever. No matter how many ternary scales I have or how large I multiply my main edo, other tunings have two massive advantages: simplicity and specific generator ranges. I suggest using a reasonably small edo or similar when you have a clear and specific concept for how a piece should be tuned, which I call a specialist tuning. For example, I use 25edo for primarily antidiatonic pieces. It simplifies the interactions compared to the ternary equivalent in 37edo and requires fewer notes per octave at the expense of versatility, but in this case versatility is not necessary. My usage of 18edo takes advantage of how restrictive it is, forcing everything into oneirotonic and smitonic frameworks.
The fundamental structure is what sets these apart from a large edo with the same options. 111edo may have a good tuning of Cohemimabila, but ignoring it is trivial. In 25edo, it's possibly the most important structure in the entire tuning. It doubles as Sixix and virtually every harmonic interpretation runs through it. If the intention when starting a piece is to use something generated by a supraminor third, that should be the focus. And if that's the focus, the choice is obvious. If there isn't a clear concept, the focus should be on what the main tuning is capable of. Edo multiplication and other ways of obtaining extra notes can be used in specialist tunings, but it risks missing the point of them.
This system actually opens up more tuning options for me. I like 21edo for oneirotonic/Slendric/Llywelyn/Sidewalk, but the very sharp 5 and flat 3 felt wrong. Now, I can confidently disregard them because they aren't part of what 21edo's purpose is to me.
