The BoCcast (Episode 9, IABPOITC)

paul · Post by **paul** » Sun Mar 30, 2014 12:02 am

halfway through these. i really appreciate the care that goes into bringing everything full-circle. i keep thinking 'whoa - he is getting way out in the weeds on this tangent' and then a cogent tie-in to a earlier point! smiles. it's not that i even agree but its the level of analysis that makes these downright fantastic. really good stuff - thank you!

BrunchTime · Post by **BrunchTime** » Mon Mar 31, 2014 5:59 pm

Episode 7 is up, and it definitely covers territory I'm only just getting familiar with. I hope I explained things reasonably well. I can't think of any real significance to 70 outside of what I listed. If you're interested, dig deeper; it's pretty cool stuff.

Meddle · Post by **Meddle** » Mon Mar 31, 2014 8:43 pm

BrunchTime wrote:Episode 7 is up, and it definitely covers territory I'm only just getting familiar with. I hope I explained things reasonably well. I can't think of any real significance to 70 outside of what I listed. If you're interested, dig deeper; it's pretty cool stuff.

Really enjoying the podcast man! Also, no need to apologise for asking for donations. You're not forcing anyone to pay and it's understandable that you want to do whatever you can to persuade people to donate money, especially for something that appears to have so much research done for it beforehand. (I've done a radio show before, and I know that producing a 45 min show is no walk in the park)
Personally, I'm surprised at how quickly you manage to send out episodes, because it really is quality material

BrunchTime · Post by **BrunchTime** » Mon Mar 31, 2014 8:45 pm

Meddle wrote:
BrunchTime wrote:Episode 7 is up, and it definitely covers territory I'm only just getting familiar with. I hope I explained things reasonably well. I can't think of any real significance to 70 outside of what I listed. If you're interested, dig deeper; it's pretty cool stuff.
Really enjoying the podcast man! Also, no need to apologise for asking for donations. You're not forcing anyone to pay and it's understandable that you want to do whatever you can to persuade people to donate money, especially for something that appears to have so much research done for it beforehand. (I've done a radio show before, and I know that producing a 45 min show is no walk in the park)
Personally, I'm surprised at how quickly you manage to send out episodes, because it really is quality material

Heyyy kind words man, thanks a ton

Mexicola · Post by **Mexicola** » Mon Mar 31, 2014 9:29 pm

I'd like to echo what Meddle said. You do a blinding job with these - no need to apologise in the slightest.

In other news, during ep.7, I was kinda envisaging you rather in this manner.

BrunchTime · Post by **BrunchTime** » Mon Mar 31, 2014 9:40 pm

Mexicola wrote:I'd like to echo what Meddle said. You do a blinding job with these - no need to apologise in the slightest.

In other news, during ep.7, I was kinda envisaging you rather in this manner.

dude how did you find this video of me

Mexicola · Post by **Mexicola** » Mon Mar 31, 2014 9:55 pm

Elementary dear boy...

JESUSANDHOES · Post by **JESUSANDHOES** » Wed Apr 02, 2014 4:35 am

Such a great topic, the choice of 70 as in Music70 that is.

I personally associate the meaning of 70 with the following:

1. There are 10 octaves in the audio spectrum of human hearing, from 20Hz to ~21,000Hz. In a diatonic scale (e.g., C Major) each octave has 7 notes. So, [(7 notes per scale) * (10 octaves)] = 70 total notes within the the human hearing spectrum.

In this context, 70 would refer to completeness, all parts being accounted for in the sound from 20Hz to 21,000Hz. The 42Hz punch on a kick drum, the 428Hz melodic element, the distortion-saturated Return channel starting at 17,500Hz, etc. They've referred to envisioning the track as a "crystal" before in interviews, so shaping every element of the sound as perfectly as possible connects to this idea of geometric completeness, related to the 70 spaces for discrete notes in the audio spectrum.

Of course it might not be what BoC had in mind specifically; I just thought it was interesting.

2. This one gets a bit out there, but it is pretty mind-bending. The proportion 0.70 is a meta-attribute of the various relationships between the semitones making up an octave, when using a root note as a reference point.

Here is a list of the ratios the 12 notes comprising a standard chromatic sequence, relative to the root note:

step 0: 720 : 720 (1 : 1) [this is the root note]
step 1 : 768 : 720 (16 : 15)
step 2: 810 : 720 (9 :

step 3: 864 : 720 (6 : 5)
step 4: 900 : 720 (5 : 4)
step 5: 960 : 720 (4 : 3)
step 6: 1024 : 720 (64 : 45)
step 7: 1,080 : 720 (3 : 2)
step 8: 1,152 : 720 (8 : 5)
step 9: 1,200 : 720 (5 : 3)
step 10: 1,296 : 720 (9 : 5)
step 11: 1,350 : 720 (15 :

step 12: 1,440 : 720 (2 : 1) [this is the octave]

You see I re-factored each proportion to out of 720 because that common factor could represent all the proportions, making it easier to understand the relationships between them. And that is where 0.70 can be found.

As a side note before going on, since you can express any musical ratio out of 720, that idea seems to fit nicely with the idea of "Twoism", because 720 also represents two circles. Kind of cool, just a thought anyways.

So back to the 0.70. First thing to do is look at the amount that each proportion relative to 720 goes up. The first semitone goes from 720:720 (duh) to 768:720, a total increase of 48:720. The next semitone goes from 768:720 to 810:720, a total increase of 42:720. Going through the whole chromatic octave results in the following array of respective increases :

semitone_increase_list = [48, 42, 54, 36, 60, 64, 56, 72, 48, 96, 54, 90]

SO, here's where, as I said, it gets "meta".

Due to the fact that every proportion is relative to 720, we can have a meaningful look at the changes between the proportions of notes. In other words, since all the above numbers in "semitone_increase_list" are relative to changes out of 720, we can look at their differences as meaningful.

The difference between notes, or the delta_notes array, is as follows:

delta_notes = [-6, + 12, - 18, + 24, + 4, - 8, + 16, -24, +48, -42, +36]

sum of negatives in delta_array: 98
sum of positives in delta_array: 140

proportion of negative growth to positive growth: 98 : 140 or 0.70 : 1

I think it's pretty beautiful that there's an oscillation between positive change and negative change in the delta_notes array. It seems we humans have an idea of where the notes should stay. And as BoC have mentioned in interviews, there's enough sunlight for that leaf, for that individual note to grow there.

Anyway I'm getting off topic!

THE BOB · Post by **THE BOB** » Wed Apr 02, 2014 4:40 pm

JESUSANDHOES wrote:each octave has 7 notes. So, [(7 notes per scale) * (10 octaves)] = 70 total notes within the the human hearing spectrum.

aw, don't take away our black keys. although the second example does return to a chromatic scale.
it's just a little confusing, in that there would seem to be more notes in the total spectrum of hearing.

thepastinsidepressant · Sat Apr 05, 2014 8:54 pm

the TH podcast pt2, come to dust, you played it at the end but how come theres
a voice in your version? "give me money"

did you put it there? cos i dont hear it in the original.

BrunchTime · Post by **BrunchTime** » Sat Apr 05, 2014 10:29 pm

thepastinsidepressant wrote:the TH podcast pt2, come to dust, you played it at the end but how come theres
a voice in your version? "give me money"

did you put it there? cos i dont hear it in the original.

Golly man, no idea!!

unrelated: my paypal is harmsoldsnake@gmail.com

Techboy · Post by **Techboy** » Sun Apr 06, 2014 10:57 am

thepastinsidepressant · Mon Apr 07, 2014 10:18 am

BrunchTime wrote:
related: my paypal is harmsoldsnake@gmail.com

i don't hear half the stuff you hear through Audacity, you sure you don't do drugs anymore? its all open to interpretation though, hearing 'things' etc, all relative i guess.

BrunchTime · Post by **BrunchTime** » Mon Apr 07, 2014 3:29 pm

thepastinsidepressant wrote:
BrunchTime wrote:
related: my paypal is harmsoldsnake@gmail.com
i don't hear half the stuff you hear through Audacity, you sure you don't do drugs anymore? its all open to interpretation though, hearing 'things' etc, all relative i guess.

I'm certain of at least 90% of the samples I posted, and 100% certain there are voices there, I might be interpreting them incorrectly though.

1. I listen in flac and podcast in 320k mp3, that could be the problem

2. What's your setup my dude??

Edit:

thepastinsidepressant wrote:you sure you don't do drugs anymore?

yes.

BrunchTime · Post by **BrunchTime** » Mon Apr 07, 2014 5:44 pm

Episode 8. Trans-Canada Highway is a lot deeper than I ever would have suspected. Amazing stuff. Enjoy.

cbm · Post by **cbm** » Mon Apr 07, 2014 8:53 pm

I can't tell you how much I love these podcasts. I promise to send you a donation when I can

Betterthanyourkids · Post by **Betterthanyourkids** » Mon Apr 07, 2014 9:48 pm

Liked Episode 8 man! Also didn't realize you live/lived in Iowa, nice to see fellow Iowan BoC fans on here

Radiobuzz · Post by **Radiobuzz** » Mon Apr 07, 2014 11:16 pm

I want to like this but I have been unable to hear any of the supposed samples in any of the episodes.

thepastinsidepressant · Mon Apr 07, 2014 11:43 pm

Radiobuzz wrote:I want to like this but I have been unable to hear any of the supposed samples in any of the episodes.

same here :/ might need repetitive plays

thepastinsidepressant · Mon Apr 07, 2014 11:44 pm

BrunchTime wrote:2. What's your setup my dude??

i'll try listening to the flacs in audacity, was using mp3s