wallowing and questions

I'm bored, unmotivated, despondent, and lonely. I wonder if anyone
else is the same, as if that would cheer me up.

I hope this year treats me well. I hope I treat this year well. I am
determined to write one movement per week (at least) of 31-tone
bassoon music, for a whole year, yet I am already a week behind. If
anyone wanted to email me randomly with cryptic words of
encouragement, expectations, or even threats, I would love that.

Some questions that I would like to ask, that they may provoke
discussion. Take them or leave them hanging.

What are our desires (if any) for a community of microtonalists at large?

What can any of us do about the many and variegated schisms among
microtonalists?

What do we care, anyway?

Is the layman (or lay-musician) perception of alternate tunings
something that could be made healthier without waging war on core
ideologies? Would there be advantages to fighting the belief that Bach
invented equal temperament?

Also, any good ideas on graduate schools?

> Also, any good ideas on graduate schools?

My own search led me to apply to Dartmouth (Larry Polansky), CalArts
(James Tenney), Montclair State (Partch instruments), and York (Bill
Brooks). I ended up going to York, not least because of their amazing
facilities for electronic music. Feel free to send me an OL e-mail to
let me know what you find!

-Chris

--
"... free speech is meaningless if the commercial cacaphony has risen
to the point that no one can hear you." -Naomi Klein

Jacob wrote:

>
>What are our desires (if any) for a community of microtonalists at large?
> >
to increase and foster microtonal music.

the problem is if you ask why
there are very fundamentally different
reasons,
to reconcile them into a single movement is not only impossible, but maybe not desirable

>What can any of us do about the many and variegated schisms among
>microtonalists?
> >
hopefully brings as many potential schisms possible as quickly as possible.
the alternative will be a quickly monotonous 'school'
with about as much interest as a most 'school' can muster
a decade usually. also a unified school would result in the various potential of the field to be ignored in one fashion or other.

>What do we care, anyway?
> >
we care because subconsciously, it has a history of representing cosmological ideas.
I think this is still one of it effect upon us

>Is the layman (or lay-musician) perception of alternate tunings
>something that could be made healthier without waging war on core
>ideologies?
>
argument is folly. real viable art work is what matters

> Would there be advantages to fighting the belief that Bach
>invented equal temperament?
> >
I hope not

>Also, any good ideas on graduate schools?
> >
there were no schools and only a handful of the people
study privately with someone you like.
It is the way music is taught else where in the world.
>
>
>
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

> there were no schools and only a handful of the people
> study privately with someone you like.
> It is the way music is taught else where in the world.

In my experience (and I think this is a phenomenon unique to the last
decade or two), academia doesn't meet microtonality with hostility so
much as indifference. Excepting the more big-headed Ivy League
schools, the universities are realizing that they can't dictate what
"serious music" is or isn't, and are letting students go wherever they
feel like. The problem isn't that microtones are being stifled, but
that most people's musical universe only has two planets: classical
and jazz/pop, both of which are currently dominated almost exclusively
by 12edo-theory. The thought that there might be other planets, or
even other galaxies, hasn't even crossed their minds.

In other words, the situation in academia is less like Big Brother in
1984, and more like Huxley's Brave New World. When you read
Shakespeare, you don't get arrested... just laughed at :)

I'm not disagreeing with Kraig or anyone else, just saying that I
think the atmosphere of the 70s and 80s has significantly changed in
the 90s and 00s... not for the better, just different :)

-Chris

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Chris Bryan <chrismbryan@g...>
wrote:
>
> > there were no schools and only a handful of the people
> > study privately with someone you like.
> > It is the way music is taught else where in the world.
>
> In my experience (and I think this is a phenomenon unique to the last
> decade or two), academia doesn't meet microtonality with hostility so
> much as indifference. Excepting the more big-headed Ivy League
> schools, the universities are realizing that they can't dictate what
> "serious music" is or isn't, and are letting students go wherever they

Sounds cool.

George Lewis was on the tuning list when he was my academic advisor
for an independent study project. He was a music professor at
University of California, San Diego at the time.

Paolo

i have yet to see a school use say Doty Primer as textbook.

Cal Arts is still the only school i know of having a tuning class
which puts it ahead of everyone it seems

But even when i went to school, i would study privately if there was a subject i was interested in.
Chris Bryan wrote:

>> there were no schools and only a handful of the people
>> study privately with someone you like.
>> It is the way music is taught else where in the world.
>> >>
>
>In my experience (and I think this is a phenomenon unique to the last
>decade or two), academia doesn't meet microtonality with hostility so
>much as indifference. Excepting the more big-headed Ivy League
>schools, the universities are realizing that they can't dictate what
>"serious music" is or isn't, and are letting students go wherever they
>feel like. The problem isn't that microtones are being stifled, but
>that most people's musical universe only has two planets: classical
>and jazz/pop, both of which are currently dominated almost exclusively
>by 12edo-theory. The thought that there might be other planets, or
>even other galaxies, hasn't even crossed their minds.
>
>In other words, the situation in academia is less like Big Brother in
>1984, and more like Huxley's Brave New World. When you read
>Shakespeare, you don't get arrested... just laughed at :)
>
>I'm not disagreeing with Kraig or anyone else, just saying that I
>think the atmosphere of the 70s and 80s has significantly changed in
>the 90s and 00s... not for the better, just different :)
>
>-Chris
>
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

> But even when i went to school, i would study privately if there was a
> subject i was interested in.

I've been doing that my entire life, so it seems counterintuitive that
anyone would not have thought of it. In this day and age, when every
city has a library and every library has high speed internet, it's
possible to teach yourself anything. I have never taken a class in
Scheme programming, throat-singing, or just-intonation, but those are
the things I'm best at.

It's very rare to learn something that you're passionate about from
school, so I don't even try. I just take classes to get a degree, and
on my own time I learn the things I care about. It just happens that
one of those things is Microtonal theory, and this group has taught me
more than any class could about that.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
>
>
> i have yet to see a school use say Doty Primer as textbook.
>
> Cal Arts is still the only school i know of having a tuning class
> which puts it ahead of everyone it seems

What in the world could people use as a textbook for tuning theory?
There isn't any exposition of the general theory of temperament;
Paul's "A Middle Path", even if it were published, is not enough for a
textbook.

Gene asked,

> What in the world could people use as a textbook for tuning theory?

Blackwood's "Structure of recognizable diatonic tunings" is one place
that give a pretty rigorous intro to a variety of topics. However, it's
also complicated enough that it requires some math background and
some familiarity already!

Between that and some chapters of Helmholtz... Personally, I also
find it rather incredible that Helmholtz holds up so well after all
these years... And supplement with some sections of Barbour; maybe:w
Wendy Carlos' "Tuning at the crossroads".

Rick

A 100-level semester could be taught with a combination of
Doty's Primer and Paul's Forms of Tonality, with exercises.
A 200-level semester could employ his 22-tET and Middle Path
papers, with exercises. Another 200-level semester could
use Blackwood and Partch, with exercises.

-Carl

At 01:59 PM 1/10/2006, you wrote:
>Gene asked,
>
>> What in the world could people use as a textbook for tuning theory?
>
>Blackwood's "Structure of recognizable diatonic tunings" is one place
>that give a pretty rigorous intro to a variety of topics. However, it's
>also complicated enough that it requires some math background and
>some familiarity already!
>
>Between that and some chapters of Helmholtz... Personally, I also
>find it rather incredible that Helmholtz holds up so well after all
>these years... And supplement with some sections of Barbour; maybe:w
>Wendy Carlos' "Tuning at the crossroads".
>
> Rick

... and of course, none of these books we've mentioned is easily
available at all. Doty is out of print and I can't even find it used.
Partch is out of print. Blackwood is in facsimile reprint at outrageous
price, etc, etc.

What's a student to do? And a prof couldn't reasonably expect students
to be able to obtain any of these as textbooks for a course.

Rick

If you go to New England Conservatory, you can explore the microtonal
(specifically, 72-equal) regions on *both* planets -- jazz *and*
classical. This seems to be an exception to what you're saying.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Chris Bryan <chrismbryan@g...>
wrote:
>
> > there were no schools and only a handful of the people
> > study privately with someone you like.
> > It is the way music is taught else where in the world.
>
> In my experience (and I think this is a phenomenon unique to the
last
> decade or two), academia doesn't meet microtonality with hostility
so
> much as indifference. Excepting the more big-headed Ivy League
> schools, the universities are realizing that they can't dictate what
> "serious music" is or isn't, and are letting students go wherever
they
> feel like. The problem isn't that microtones are being stifled, but
> that most people's musical universe only has two planets: classical
> and jazz/pop, both of which are currently dominated almost
exclusively
> by 12edo-theory. The thought that there might be other planets, or
> even other galaxies, hasn't even crossed their minds.
>
> In other words, the situation in academia is less like Big Brother
in
> 1984, and more like Huxley's Brave New World. When you read
> Shakespeare, you don't get arrested... just laughed at :)
>
> I'm not disagreeing with Kraig or anyone else, just saying that I
> think the atmosphere of the 70s and 80s has significantly changed in
> the 90s and 00s... not for the better, just different :)
>
> -Chris
>

Thanks, but I'd hope for such courses to cover some of Erv Wilson's
theories in some detail, particularly as they are currently rather
inaccessible to many newbies. Also, I'd stick in Sethares's basic
theories somewhere, along with articles by Donald Hall and so much
else . . .

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
>
> A 100-level semester could be taught with a combination of
> Doty's Primer and Paul's Forms of Tonality, with exercises.
> A 200-level semester could employ his 22-tET and Middle Path
> papers, with exercises. Another 200-level semester could
> use Blackwood and Partch, with exercises.
>
> -Carl
>
> At 01:59 PM 1/10/2006, you wrote:
> >Gene asked,
> >
> >> What in the world could people use as a textbook for tuning
theory?
> >
> >Blackwood's "Structure of recognizable diatonic tunings" is one
place
> >that give a pretty rigorous intro to a variety of topics. However,
it's
> >also complicated enough that it requires some math background and
> >some familiarity already!
> >
> >Between that and some chapters of Helmholtz... Personally, I also
> >find it rather incredible that Helmholtz holds up so well after all
> >these years... And supplement with some sections of Barbour;
maybe:w
> >Wendy Carlos' "Tuning at the crossroads".
> >
> > Rick
>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Rick McGowan <rick@u...> wrote:
>
> ... and of course, none of these books we've mentioned is easily
> available at all. Doty is out of print and I can't even find it used.
> Partch is out of print. Blackwood is in facsimile reprint at
outrageous
> price, etc, etc.
>
> What's a student to do? And a prof couldn't reasonably expect students
> to be able to obtain any of these as textbooks for a course.
>
> Rick

There should be a small number of required readings from these books,
so that the students can use the one copy of each the school library is
likely to have. There's so much other material to cover anyway that
anything more than a few select passages/concepts from each of these
books would begin to crowd out some equally important stuff.

At 03:17 PM 1/10/2006, you wrote:
>... and of course, none of these books we've mentioned is easily
>available at all. Doty is out of print and I can't even find it used.

Is it no longer available from the Network store?

http://www.justintonation.net/jistore.html

>Partch is out of print.

No it's not.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/030680106X/

>Blackwood is in facsimile reprint at outrageous price, etc, etc.

That's true. A teacher may be able to get permission from
the publisher to photocopy it...

>What's a student to do? And a prof couldn't reasonably expect students
>to be able to obtain any of these as textbooks for a course.

Paul's papers are available on the internet.

-Carl

Ah, yes Sethares' book -- which is in-print and very relevant.
But I think for an intro course, a general overview of
temperament and basic intervals is needed for the "100-level" course.

Tuning Timbre Spectrum Scale is a great book that's available.
Erv's stuff makes great overheads... nice mini-units between
sections of the syllabi perhaps.

-Carl

At 03:44 PM 1/10/2006, you wrote:
>Thanks, but I'd hope for such courses to cover some of Erv Wilson's
>theories in some detail, particularly as they are currently rather
>inaccessible to many newbies. Also, I'd stick in Sethares's basic
>theories somewhere, along with articles by Donald Hall and so much
>else . . .
>
>
>--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
>>
>> A 100-level semester could be taught with a combination of
>> Doty's Primer and Paul's Forms of Tonality, with exercises.
>> A 200-level semester could employ his 22-tET and Middle Path
>> papers, with exercises. Another 200-level semester could
>> use Blackwood and Partch, with exercises.
>>
>> -Carl

I personally have learn way less about microtonality on these list and on the internet than anywhere.
but i was also referring to one on one training
Rozencrantz the Sane wrote:

>>But even when i went to school, i would study privately if there was a
>>subject i was interested in.
>> >>
>
>I've been doing that my entire life, so it seems counterintuitive that
>anyone would not have thought of it. In this day and age, when every
>city has a library and every library has high speed internet, it's
>possible to teach yourself anything. I have never taken a class in
>Scheme programming, throat-singing, or just-intonation, but those are
>the things I'm best at.
>
>It's very rare to learn something that you're passionate about from
>school, so I don't even try. I just take classes to get a degree, and
>on my own time I learn the things I care about. It just happens that
>one of those things is Microtonal theory, and this group has taught me
>more than any class could about that.
>
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

Doty's book is a good introduction

Gene Ward Smith wrote:

>--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...>
>wrote:
> >
>> i have yet to see a school use say Doty Primer as textbook.
>>
>> Cal Arts is still the only school i know of having a tuning class
>>which puts it ahead of everyone it seems
>> >>
>
>What in the world could people use as a textbook for tuning theory?
>There isn't any exposition of the general theory of temperament;
>Paul's "A Middle Path", even if it were published, is not enough for a
>textbook.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

I arguer that helmholtz holds up quite well and was quite insightful.
Partch's book and Lou Harrisons books are
quite inspiring. I hope we have room for that!
Rick McGowan wrote:

>Gene asked,
>
> >
>>What in the world could people use as a textbook for tuning theory?
>> >>
>
>Blackwood's "Structure of recognizable diatonic tunings" is one place
>that give a pretty rigorous intro to a variety of topics. However, it's
>also complicated enough that it requires some math background and
>some familiarity already!
>
>Between that and some chapters of Helmholtz... Personally, I also
>find it rather incredible that Helmholtz holds up so well after all
>these years... And supplement with some sections of Barbour; maybe:w
>Wendy Carlos' "Tuning at the crossroads".
>
> Rick
>
>
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

i say we have a temperment school and a just intonation school

Carl Lumma wrote:

>A 100-level semester could be taught with a combination of
>Doty's Primer and Paul's Forms of Tonality, with exercises.
>A 200-level semester could employ his 22-tET and Middle Path
>papers, with exercises. Another 200-level semester could
>use Blackwood and Partch, with exercises.
>
>-Carl
>
>At 01:59 PM 1/10/2006, you wrote:
> >
>>Gene asked,
>>
>> >>
>>>What in the world could people use as a textbook for tuning theory?
>>> >>>
>>Blackwood's "Structure of recognizable diatonic tunings" is one place
>>that give a pretty rigorous intro to a variety of topics. However, it's
>>also complicated enough that it requires some math background and
>>some familiarity already!
>>
>>Between that and some chapters of Helmholtz... Personally, I also
>>find it rather incredible that Helmholtz holds up so well after all
>>these years... And supplement with some sections of Barbour; maybe:w
>>Wendy Carlos' "Tuning at the crossroads".
>>
>> Rick
>> >>
>
>
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

Mr. McG,

{you wrote...}
>Doty is out of print and I can't even find it used.

Really? I'll drop David a line to see if he'll reprint.

>Partch is out of print.

Eh? Nope: http://tinyurl.com/c9ght

>Blackwood is in facsimile reprint at outrageous price, etc, etc.

That's OK. :)

>What's a student to do? And a prof couldn't reasonably expect students to be able to obtain any of these as textbooks for a course.

No, but a good prof, with a couple years notice, could probably put together a good tuning book. The difficulty would be in making it appropriate to a target audience - a book for musicians is not necessarily a book for mathematicians, and vice versa. Would be a tricky balancing act!

Cheers,
Jon

Carl Lumma wrote,

> Doty...
> Is it no longer available from the Network store?
> http://www.justintonation.net/jistore.html

Oh. Yes, it is still there. I thought it was a *book*, and I didn't find
it by Googling, nor by looking on Amazon or other used-book sources. I
guess because it's only available through the JI Network...? Anyway, I
guess I can order it from them.

> >Partch is out of print.
> No it's not.
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/030680106X/

Wow. Thanks for finding it. I somehow missed this entirely. Well, I'm glad
it *is* in print. I just ordered one.

Cheers,
Rick

Hey, Jon...

> >Doty is out of print and I can't even find it used.
> Really? I'll drop David a line to see if he'll reprint.

Yeah... I saw Carl's pointer to JIN. Thanks!

> a good prof, with a couple years notice, could probably put
> together a good tuning book. The difficulty would be in
> making it appropriate to a target audience - a book for
> musicians is not necessarily a book for mathematicians, and
> vice versa. Would be a tricky balancing act!

What's needed for students who are already musicians is a book that
approaches it from a musical perspective, with the assumption that the
student has been trained in first year "music theory" as taught by our fine
universities, and then proceeding to go through just intervals, commas,
and "Temperament" -- the whys and wherefores of tuning and temperament in
western history, the search for better tunings, etc. Then proceeding to the
fundamental "problems" of JI that couldn't be solved in practice; and the
modern responses to those problems -- i.e., computer aided adaptive tuning,
etc. Then the student would be ready for other concepts like the N-edo
tunings, tunings in non-western traditions, N-limit JI tunings, and so
forth, with an introduction to some of the higher concepts like lattices...

For me personally, the study of tuning branches right about there into the
"abstract" technical studies that are more mathematical/theoretical, and
the "practical" issues like setting your instruments up with some semblance
of a tuning (as close as you can get to whatever theoretical tuning you're
trying to emulate) and then playing them, or writing for different
tunings, etc.

Rick

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Rick McGowan <rick@u...> wrote:
>
> Gene asked,
>
> > What in the world could people use as a textbook for tuning theory?
>
> Blackwood's "Structure of recognizable diatonic tunings" is one place
> that give a pretty rigorous intro to a variety of topics.

Far too specialized to be of much general use, I would think.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> Paul's papers are available on the internet.

Your links don't work. I ended up putting them on my web site and
linking Wikipedia to that. And _A Middle Path_, the most useful for
tuning theory, is not yet published, and much too short.

At 11:45 PM 1/10/2006, you wrote:
>--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
>
>> Paul's papers are available on the internet.
>
>Your links don't work.

Of course they do.

http://lumma.org/tuning/erlich/

>I ended up putting them on my web site and linking Wikipedia to
>that.

Why didn't you tell me you were having a problem?

-Carl

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
>
> Doty's book is a good introduction

To temperament??

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
>
> I personally have learn way less about microtonality on these list and
> on the internet than anywhere.

That's your choice.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
>
> At 11:45 PM 1/10/2006, you wrote:
> >--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >
> >> Paul's papers are available on the internet.
> >
> >Your links don't work.
>
> Of course they do.
>
> http://lumma.org/tuning/erlich/

OK, they seem to be working now. But do direct links work?

> >I ended up putting them on my web site and linking Wikipedia to
> >that.
>
> Why didn't you tell me you were having a problem?

Because I thought perhaps you didn't want people directly linking
without viewing your page.

Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: wallowing and questions

>i say we have a temperment school and a just intonation school

Preferably not in the same building : - )

james

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Rozencrantz the Sane
<rozencrantz@g...> wrote:

Those who can, do.
Those who can't, teach.
And those that can't teach, teach at our school.

(Woody Allen?)

Stephen Szpak

__________________________________________________________

> > But even when i went to school, i would study privately if there
was a
> > subject i was interested in.
>
>>
> It's very rare to learn something that you're passionate about from
> school, so I don't even try.

I agree with Carl that the two should be combined into the same
courses. The relationships between the two form a great starting
point for understanding either.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
>
> i say we have a temperment school and a just intonation school
>
> Carl Lumma wrote:
>
> >A 100-level semester could be taught with a combination of
> >Doty's Primer and Paul's Forms of Tonality, with exercises.
> >A 200-level semester could employ his 22-tET and Middle Path
> >papers, with exercises. Another 200-level semester could
> >use Blackwood and Partch, with exercises.
> >
> >-Carl
> >
> >At 01:59 PM 1/10/2006, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Gene asked,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>What in the world could people use as a textbook for tuning
theory?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Blackwood's "Structure of recognizable diatonic tunings" is one
place
> >>that give a pretty rigorous intro to a variety of topics.
However, it's
> >>also complicated enough that it requires some math background and
> >>some familiarity already!
> >>
> >>Between that and some chapters of Helmholtz... Personally, I also
> >>find it rather incredible that Helmholtz holds up so well after
all
> >>these years... And supplement with some sections of Barbour;
maybe:w
> >>Wendy Carlos' "Tuning at the crossroads".
> >>
> >> Rick
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles
>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Rick McGowan <rick@u...> wrote:
> >
> > Gene asked,
> >
> > > What in the world could people use as a textbook for tuning
theory?
> >
> > Blackwood's "Structure of recognizable diatonic tunings" is one
place
> > that give a pretty rigorous intro to a variety of topics.
>
> Far too specialized to be of much general use, I would think.

But far more directly relevant to Western common practice than
a "generalized" approach would be. At least a few chapters of Blackwood
would be excellent for explaining that JI and many temperaments are ill-
suited for common practice music -- the lack of such explanation being
a major hole in Helmholtz, Partch, Doty etc.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith"
<gwsmith@s...> wrote:
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
>
> > Paul's papers are available on the internet.
>
> Your links don't work. I ended up putting them on my web site and
> linking Wikipedia to that. And _A Middle Path_, the most useful for
> tuning theory,

Thanks, I wish that were true. From the comments I received, a lot of
people had a lot of difficulty with a lot of sections.

> is not yet published,

John says he's doing it now!

> and much too short.

Indeed. The current ~40 pages are just part 1 (it was hard enough
getting approval for as many as 40), and already require bits of
knowledge that most laypeople who are not Xenharmonikon readers would
need another 40 pages to explain . . . like the properties of
logarithms for one thing. The use of Tenney and TOP in my paper was
simply one choice (John didn't want many multiple, slightly different
versions of the same tunings); an expanded paper would cover Kees
too, L_1 and L_2 in addition to L_inf, explain (with diagrams) how my
complexity calculations were done, etc. . . . And it would still be
silent on the subject of irregular temperaments! :) But I'm flattered.

Carl suggested, re an earlier posting,

> > Blackwood's "Structure of recognizable diatonic tunings"
> ...
> Far too specialized to be of much general use, I would think.

and Paul just wrote,

> But far more directly relevant to Western common practice than
> a "generalized" approach would be. At least a few chapters of
> Blackwood would be excellent for explaining that JI and many
> temperaments are ill-suited for common practice music -- the
> lack of such explanation being a major hole in Helmholtz,
> Partch, Doty etc.

Indeed, Paul explains better than I. That is more or less why I think
Blackwood's book is an absolute "must" for a university level course on
tuning for musicians. For an elementary (100 level) course, it's perhaps
too mathematically sophisticated, but sections of it certainly would be
valuable even to paraphrase for a class. And the whole book could
profitably be used as the text for a semester length upper division course.

(And my disclaimer: I'm not a tuning-math guy by any stretch of the
imagination. I eagerly read Blackwood's book in 1989 and understood it as I
read, but I didn't do any exercises or work through anything myself, so
you can take my suggestion with a grain of salt.)

Rick

>> >> Paul's papers are available on the internet.
>> >
>> >Your links don't work.
>>
>> Of course they do.
>>
>> http://lumma.org/tuning/erlich/
>
>OK, they seem to be working now. But do direct links work?

Yes.

>> >I ended up putting them on my web site and linking Wikipedia to
>> >that.
>>
>> Why didn't you tell me you were having a problem?
>
>Because I thought perhaps you didn't want people directly linking
>without viewing your page.

No, no problem. I'm a great fan of http for file transfer.

-Carl

Hey gang!

Sorry to chime in so tardy (and impolitely!) with this, but,

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Rozencrantz the Sane
<rozencrantz@g...> wrote:

> It's very rare to learn something that you're passionate about from
> school, so I don't even try. I just take classes to get a degree,
and
> on my own time I learn the things I care about.

I think that's it, in a nutty nutshell. :-)

The kids I work with assume that school is boring (not to say 'cruel
and unusual'... :-), and that the teachers are self-serving hacks.
So, for someone to come in and make it fun is almost impossible, try
as they might. Chances are that the teacher is a self-serving hack,
if only in the sense that s/he has a vested interest in the
institution, ie the signatory on her/his paycheck. (Not to mention
if they wrote the textbook, and think it's the consummate
distillation of the entire history of all music.)

It's all-too-easy to write a syllabus with impressive
sounding "goals", and a daunting bibliography. But at what point
does the teacher's (or the institution's???) "controlling ego" jump
in to announce that there is altogether too much mirth and chaos
going on in this class, so it gets shut down? Usually right about
the time the kids are starting to enjoy themselves, so it's more
like lifelong coitus interruptus instead of lifelong "learning".

Or, it's (deliberately???) scheduled so that there could never, ever
be enough time to really get crankin' on an comprehensive idea,
which could pose a threat to the foundational "principles" of the
institution. So, narrow the subject(s), hyperspecialize everyone,
and pit them against each other in petty rivalries, and gossip.

It works every time.

> institution. So, narrow the subject(s), hyperspecialize everyone,
> and pit them against each other in petty rivalries, and gossip.

Specialization is evil. It's why history (classes) suck.

:)

--
"... free speech is meaningless if the commercial cacaphony has risen
to the point that no one can hear you." -Naomi Klein

Hi Chris,

You wrote earlier in the "Schools..." thread:

<< Anyway, my point is that, 90% of the class hated the tuning section
of
the course (Actually, I think I was the only one who enjoyed it).
Why?? Because it was MATH! >>

That reminded me that I've come to wonder to what extent the "Math
crowd" (sorry :-) might be a bit exclusive (?) in their stewardship of
mathematical profundity. It's been my observation that they
(school/college math folks, not our resident luminaries!) can be quite
territorial about their knowledge. Or that there is some sort of
hierarchical structure that is absolutely inviolate, and if one hasn't
taken X, Y, and Z math classes (and passed them enthusiastically?),
there is no hope.

I only bring it up to indicate my own hope that at some point there
might be remedial (??? :-) math courses for musicians who used to cut
math class to practice, or something like that. (smile) I'm serious.

A lot of the musicians I run into are just too "conservative" to even
try to play "out of tune", because all they really want are careers
playing on jingles and in shows, etc. So I guess the only hope is for
someone to produce a really successful TV commercial or musical
theater production or something like that in a xenharmonic
construction. But that would tend to undo the ongoing brainwashing
campaign, no? I mean, if background music was an aid to contemplation
and consideration, it would be the bain of salespeople -wouldn't it?-
not an essential component of effective advertising.

I also wonder to what extent it will ever be desirable (again?) to NOT
be a trull for some movie producer or ad exec.

Cheers,

Pete

ps To the extent that history writing requires a "dry" style, I guess
I've learned to respect it. I tend to prefer spicy polemics, but they
run the risk of encouraging a bad element in society. Hee!

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Chris Bryan <chrismbryan@g...>
wrote:

> Specialization is evil. It's why history (classes) suck.
>
> :)
>
> --
> "... free speech is meaningless if the commercial cacaphony has risen
> to the point that no one can hear you." -Naomi Klein
>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Jacob" <jbarton@r...> wrote:
>
Jacob posted these a while back:

What are our desires (if any) for a community of microtonalists at
large?

What can any of us do about the many and variegated schisms among
microtonalists?

Were these answered?

S. Szpak

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 Stephen Szpak wrote:
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Jacob" <jbarton@r...> wrote:
> >
> Jacob posted these a while back:
>
> What are our desires (if any) for a community of microtonalists at
> large?
>
> What can any of us do about the many and variegated schisms among
> microtonalists?
>
> Were these answered?

Yes, Stephen, I recall that Kraig had something
to say. My comments may merely be an squeaking
microtonal echo of his, but here goes:

> What are our desires (if any) for a community of microtonalists at
> large?

That they continue to play and enjoy themselves
peacably in that great sandpit of possibility, in
which we are all cast as mere infants of evolution,
called "life". And that if they make mud pies, let
them enjoying eating them themselves, without
making their little playmates gag by forcing them
down their throats; and may they enjoy decorating
themselves with the fruits of their earnest labours,
without throwing them at others to see what sticks.

> What can any of us do about the many and variegated schisms among
> microtonalists?

Let 'em fester! (There's a wonderful recording
opportunity for a musique concr�te artist in
getting up close to record the ooze of the
suppurating sores and the delightful crackle of
scabs being picked off ...)

No, seriously, do you think we can mend breaches
of the peace between trouble-makers? Of course
not! Until they themselves understand that peace
is more profitable, they will continue to squabble
and mark out territory. This is true in any field.

However, in my experiences, actual musos (ie music
makers) tend to be a friendly lot, willing to learn
from and teach each other. This group is testament
to that fact. It's only those lacking self-confidence
that feel a need to impose their ways on others.

"Music is a broad church" - and long may it be so!

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.20/234 - Release Date: 18/1/06

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Yahya Abdal-Aziz" <yahya@m...>
wrote:

>
> Yahya

What can any of us do about the many and variegated schisms among
> > microtonalists?
>
> Let 'em fester!

So much for teaching microtonality at the various music schools.
No direction, no standards, no common ground.

Stephen

> What can any of us do about the many and variegated schisms among
> > > microtonalists?
> >
> > Let 'em fester!
>
> So much for teaching microtonality at the various music schools.
> No direction, no standards, no common ground.

That's like saying that academia has to resolve the schism between
hyper-complexity and minimalism before anyone can learn or teach
music!

Contrasting musical schools that coexist together doesn't stifle
discussion and learning, it stimulates it. Understanding edo-s helps
one to appreciate ji, and vice versa. It's not "no direction," but a
multiplicity of directions. Not "no common ground," because in the
end we're all dealing with the audible frequency spectrum, and that's
all the common ground you need.

Pop music can sometimes be so obsessed with fads and bandwagons, that
I can understand how some people might crave "the next big thing"...
but I don't think that's neccessary, or neccessarily helpful.

-Chris

On 1/23/06, c.m.bryan <chrismbryan@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What can any of us do about the many and variegated schisms among
> > > > microtonalists?
> > >
> > > Let 'em fester!
> >
> > So much for teaching microtonality at the various music schools.
> > No direction, no standards, no common ground.
>
> That's like saying that academia has to resolve the schism between
> hyper-complexity and minimalism before anyone can learn or teach
> music!
>
> Contrasting musical schools that coexist together doesn't stifle
> discussion and learning, it stimulates it. Understanding edo-s helps
> one to appreciate ji, and vice versa. It's not "no direction," but a
> multiplicity of directions. Not "no common ground," because in the
> end we're all dealing with the audible frequency spectrum, and that's
> all the common ground you need.
>
> Pop music can sometimes be so obsessed with fads and bandwagons, that
> I can understand how some people might crave "the next big thing"...
> but I don't think that's neccessary, or neccessarily helpful.
>
> -Chris

Hear, hear!

If you want people to follow you and use your tuning system, you have
to prove it's better than the rest by writing great music in it. That
way, the bad tunings will be explored and then abandoned, and the good
tunings will be recognized and flourish.

Keenan

> Hear, hear!
>
> If you want people to follow you and use your tuning system, you have
> to prove it's better than the rest by writing great music in it. That
> way, the bad tunings will be explored and then abandoned, and the good
> tunings will be recognized and flourish.
>
> Keenan

Yes, and the point is that the winners and the standards are only
apparent in retrospect: any prediction of "the next big thing" is
probably rubbish. Standards are created by good music, not the other
way 'round.

I'll stop preaching now :)

-Chris

>
Don't see how my scale came up in this discussion.

Stephen

>>
> If you want people to follow you and use your tuning system, you have
> to prove it's better than the rest by writing great music in it. That
> way, the bad tunings will be explored and then abandoned, and the
good
> tunings will be recognized and flourish.
>
> Keenan
>

Chris

Pop music can sometimes be so obsessed with fads and bandwagons, that
> I can understand how some people might crave "the next big
thing"...
> but I don't think that's neccessary, or neccessarily helpful.

+++++++++++++++If this is about my thoughts on a new genre...
I brought up that subject because I was wondering just how
many new and distinct genres can yet be created in 12 EDO
(and by extension all the other divisions of the octave).
How much *new*, I mean really new is left? How many people
on this list have created a genre that is new, and not at
all like any other? (yes,disco and rock are different).

That's like saying that academia has to resolve the schism between
> hyper-complexity and minimalism before anyone can learn or teach
> music!

+++++++++++++++Don't understand your big words. (I'm not
a expert at this stuff.)

Contrasting musical schools that coexist together doesn't stifle
> discussion and learning, it stimulates it.

++++++++++++++I don't see how spending a small amount of one's
limited time in 15, and some in 17, and some in 19, and some
in 24, and some in 31, 32, 33, 38,51, 65,67,69,70 can result
in virtuosity or even competency. Moreover, the greater the
number of divisions of the octave that are used by microton-
alists, the smaller the body of work for any given one. This
also reduces the likelyhood of a standard emmerging (that is,
19 EDO, some form of 24, etc.)

Stephen Szpak

> +++++++++++++++If this is about my thoughts on a new genre...
> I brought up that subject because I was wondering just how
> many new and distinct genres can yet be created in 12 EDO
> (and by extension all the other divisions of the octave).
> How much *new*, I mean really new is left? How many people
> on this list have created a genre that is new, and not at
> all like any other? (yes,disco and rock are different).

I think we've reached an impasse on this subject of genre; I can't
agree with your definition of the word, because I don't think it makes
a lot of sense. I don't think there's any music that's "not at all"
like any other music, regardless of genre. On a physical level, all
music is vibration, so every genre has that in common. Perceptually,
all of the music I can think of contains elements of melody, harmony,
and rhythm. Therefore, all music is fundamentally similar, and the
similarities between any genre are vastly greater than the
differences.

I think "genre" is a perceptual tool that people use to distinguish
between that basic similarity: if a large body of music contains some
pieces that are slower (for example) and some that are faster, or some
that have drums and backbeats and some that have string parts and
waltz meters, we call them different genres. An alien race 10,000
years from now might classify "western music" as a single genre from
Bach to Saturday Night Fever, and their classification wouldn't be any
more right or wrong than ours. Since the notion of genre is something
that we impose on the music and not something which is inherent in the
music itself, it doesn't make sense to use that as the basis for the
potential of future creative endeavors.

> +++++++++++++++Don't understand your big words. (I'm not
> a expert at this stuff.)

My apologies. I don't mean to put anyone off with "big words."

> ++++++++++++++I don't see how spending a small amount of one's
> limited time in 15, and some in 17, and some in 19, and some
> in 24, and some in 31, 32, 33, 38,51, 65,67,69,70 can result
> in virtuosity or even competency.

It can, in the same way that playing rock music won't make you a worse
classical player. Playing many different kinds of music increases
one's understanding of music *as a whole,* and playing in many
different tunings will also (imo) increase one's understanding of
tuning as a whole. When you start playing music, you don't have to
lock yourself into playing Bach or Metallica... why should you lock
yourself into one tuning? Expertise in one style of music comes
*after* general knowledge, not vice versa; and the same can (and
should) be true for tuning.

I think that's all I have to say, if you want to continue the
discussion, feel free to e-mail me OL...

-Chris

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "stephenszpak"
<stephen_szpak@h...> wrote:

> ++++++++++++++I don't see how spending a small amount of one's
> limited time in 15, and some in 17, and some in 19, and some
> in 24, and some in 31, 32, 33, 38,51, 65,67,69,70 can result
> in virtuosity or even competency.

It's a great way to understand tuning *in general*.

Moreover, the greater the
> number of divisions of the octave that are used by microton-
> alists, the smaller the body of work for any given one. This
> also reduces the likelyhood of a standard emmerging (that is,
> 19 EDO, some form of 24, etc.)

Is it desirable for a standard to emerge?

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "c.m.bryan"
<chrismbryan@g...> wrote:

Chris

No sense fighting about this. Remind me in the future
if I get into a discussion about this again. I find it
hard to keep track of who I wrote to. We won't be able
to resovle this to each other. Oh well.

Stephen

_____________________________________________________
>
> > >
> I think we've reached an impasse on this subject of genre; >>
> I think that's all I have to say, if you want to continue the
> discussion, feel free to e-mail me OL...
>
> -Chris
>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith"
<gwsmith@s...> wrote:

Gene

>>
> > ++++++++++++++I don't see how spending a small amount of one's
> > limited time in 15, and some in 17, and some in 19, and some
> > in 24, and some in 31, 32, 33, 38,51, 65,67,69,70 can result
> > in virtuosity or even competency.
>
> It's a great way to understand tuning *in general*.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++I don't think one has
to deal with 15 (or 50) tunings to achieve that.
>
> Moreover, the greater the
> > number of divisions of the octave that are used by microton-
> > alists, the smaller the body of work for any given one. This
> > also reduces the likelyhood of a standard emmerging (that is,
> > 19 EDO, some form of 24, etc.)
>
> Is it desirable for a standard to emerge?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Sure. Possibly one tuning that is
essentially unplayable, that
contains a great deal of ratios (or however I should say it).
The computer people could do a lot here.
I've heard 72 EDO is excellent.

For tunings that are playable, were basically talking about
24 notes per octave or less. (With my experience with 24, I
can tell you the strecthes are huge, and I have big hands.)
One has to draw the line somewhere. If there are two or three
tunings (other than 12 EDO) that have 24 notes per octave or
less, I think that would be a start. There would be multiple
standards (at least for the short term) but, if there is so
much left in 12 EDO, there should be plenty in 19 EDO and
some form of 24. This concentrates the music being composed,
yet keeps the options for composition large enough for just
about everyone. I'm not saying 19 and 24, but there are worse
choices.

Stephen Szpak

On 1/25/06, stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Sure. Possibly one tuning that is
> essentially unplayable, that
> contains a great deal of ratios (or however I should say it).
> The computer people could do a lot here.
> I've heard 72 EDO is excellent.
>
> For tunings that are playable, were basically talking about
> 24 notes per octave or less. (With my experience with 24, I
> can tell you the strecthes are huge, and I have big hands.)
> One has to draw the line somewhere. If there are two or three
> tunings (other than 12 EDO) that have 24 notes per octave or
> less, I think that would be a start. There would be multiple
> standards (at least for the short term) but, if there is so
> much left in 12 EDO, there should be plenty in 19 EDO and
> some form of 24. This concentrates the music being composed,
> yet keeps the options for composition large enough for just
> about everyone. I'm not saying 19 and 24, but there are worse
> choices.

I tend to agree with you, but be aware that you're assuming the usual
7-white-5-black keyboard, which was designed for 12 notes to the
octave. If a new tuning system ever becomes standard there would be a
different corresponding keyboard layout.

Also, 24-EDO is not that great. It's good for intervals of 11 (12/11,
11/9, and 11/8) but it's the same as 12-EDO for intervals of 5 and 7.
22-EDO is much better all around.

> Stephen Szpak

Keenan

P.S. What's with all the plus signs?

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Keenan Pepper
<keenanpepper@g...> wrote:

Keenan

I tend to agree with you, but be aware that you're assuming the usual
> 7-white-5-black keyboard, which was designed for 12 notes to the
> octave. If a new tuning system ever becomes standard there would
be a
> different corresponding keyboard layout.
>
> Also, 24-EDO is not that great. It's good for intervals of 11
(12/11,
> 11/9, and 11/8) but it's the same as 12-EDO for intervals of 5 and
7.
> 22-EDO is much better all around.
>
> > Stephen Szpak
>
> Keenan
>
> P.S. What's with all the plus signs?
>
++++++++++++++++++Keenan

With 24 EDO there are certain ratios (you know more about
tuning than I do, most do). One could of course shift the
'new' notes in 24 to the left or right or keep them in the
center. This would create three standards already, not a good
start. At least the three would be one, to a small extent.

I know what you mean by keyboard layout. I've been trying to
learn 15 for a long time. I use a color coded strip of poster
board across the keyboard. Nothing lines up the same way twice
as it does indeed do in 24.

The plus signs are to show where my words are as opposed to
any other persons. No body else uses plus signs. Maybe the
idea needs rethinking(?).

Thanks for the feedback,

Stephen

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "stephenszpak"
<stephen_szpak@h...> wrote:

> For tunings that are playable, were basically talking about
> 24 notes per octave or less.

Yet people persist in playing live music in 72-et. I've linked some
examples to Wikipeida articles on various equal temperaments:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/72_equal_temperament

If there are two or three
> tunings (other than 12 EDO) that have 24 notes per octave or
> less, I think that would be a start.

In terms of equal temperaments, the obvious choices here are 19 and
22, but 24 has something to be said for it.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith"
<gwsmith@s...> wrote:
>> > >
> Yet people persist in playing live music in 72-et. I've linked some
> examples to Wikipeida articles on various equal temperaments:

+++++++++++++++++Gene. This is amazing. More power to them.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/72_equal_temperament
>
> If there are two or three
> > tunings (other than 12 EDO) that have 24 notes per octave or
> > less, I think that would be a start.
>
> In terms of equal temperaments, the obvious choices here are 19 and
> 22, but 24 has something to be said for it.

++++++++++++++++++++Thanks for the positive on 24.

Stephen
>

On 1/25/06, stephenszpak <stephen_szpak@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> ++++++++++++++++++Keenan
>
> With 24 EDO there are certain ratios (you know more about
> tuning than I do, most do). One could of course shift the
> 'new' notes in 24 to the left or right or keep them in the
> center. This would create three standards already, not a good
> start. At least the three would be one, to a small extent.

The main advantage of an equal temperament is that the kinds of
intervals available are the same in every key, which allows unlimited
modulation. Shifting any of the notes destroys this symmetry, and the
benefit gained by having only some of the notes corresponding to an
equal temperament is small. I would say 24 successive notes of
meantone temperament, for example, would be a much better system than
two shifted copies of 12-EDO.

That said, there are temperaments which contain 12-EDO as well as
other notes deviating from it by multiples of a constant step. For
example, there's one called Compton in which the intervals of 5 (major
and minor thirds and sixths) are one step off from 12-EDO, so there's
an equal-tempered major third at 400 cents and a much better major
third at about 386 cents, and so on for the other intervals.

Not my favorite temperament, but not unusable.

> I know what you mean by keyboard layout. I've been trying to
> learn 15 for a long time. I use a color coded strip of poster
> board across the keyboard. Nothing lines up the same way twice
> as it does indeed do in 24.
>
> The plus signs are to show where my words are as opposed to
> any other persons. No body else uses plus signs. Maybe the
> idea needs rethinking(?).

I think the accepted standard is to put greater-than signs before the
other person's comments, as I have done here, and don't use any
special characters for your reply. Many mail programs do this
automatically.

> Thanks for the feedback,
>
> Stephen

Keenan

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Keenan Pepper
<keenanpepper@g...> wrote:

> That said, there are temperaments which contain 12-EDO as well as
> other notes deviating from it by multiples of a constant step. For
> example, there's one called Compton in which the intervals of 5 (major
> and minor thirds and sixths) are one step off from 12-EDO, so there's
> an equal-tempered major third at 400 cents and a much better major
> third at about 386 cents, and so on for the other intervals.
>
> Not my favorite temperament, but not unusable.

And one well-adapted to 24 notes to an octave.