Re: [MMM] counterpoint and microtonality

Brian,

both approaches are valid. Compose!

Let us hear your efforts.

Good luck!
George

xbrianskix@... wrote:

> Hi, yall...
>
> Being relatively new to microtonality, I hope you
> forgive any errors/stupidities in my post. But having
> dreamed up a few scales that (to me) make sense from a
> harmonic point of view, I was wondering how y'all go
> about building a song with a new scale?
>
> Having recently recovered from a year of introductory
> music theory classes, it looks like, through the ages,
> the way we got to where we are now (in the 12-tet
> world) is by gradual addition of voices - cantus
> firmi, counterpoint, up to 4-part harmony, etc...) So
> I was wondering if anyone has tried/what your thoughts
> are on taking a similar approach with a new scale.
> First, build some melodies, then add a second line
> (perhaps borrowing some "rules" from traditional
> counterpoint, and inventing some new ones that make
> sense for your own scale), and seeing where it goes.
> Or do y'all take a more shotgun approach and just
> program your computer/keyboard of choice to play the
> new scale, and just start messing around with it and
> see what happens?
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks for your time,
> Brian Szymanski
> bks10@...
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
> your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
> or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Hi Brian,

> from a harmonic point of view, I was wondering how y'all go
> about building a song with a new scale?
>
> Having recently recovered from a year of introductory
> music theory classes, it looks like, through the ages,
> the way we got to where we are now (in the 12-tet
> world) is by gradual addition of voices - cantus
> firmi, counterpoint, up to 4-part harmony, etc...) So
> I was wondering if anyone has tried/what your thoughts
> are on taking a similar approach with a new scale.
> First, build some melodies, then add a second line, and
> seeing where it goes.

Brian, I find this method works extremely well. It
can be done be ear.

By using this method too, I find that you can converge
on harmonic practices for your new system better than
you can by starting out trying to play block chords
which often results in converging upon low limit JI
as a favorite. Starting with melody based counterpoint
instead leaves more possibilities open to the ear.

> (perhaps borrowing some "rules" from traditional
> counterpoint)

Yes, traditional 'techniques' are worth playing with to
see how they work out. There really aren't any rules
though except ones you consciously choose to adopt for
a particular effect or as a personal challenge or to
help yourself focus.

>, and inventing some new ones that make
> sense for your own scale), and seeing where it goes.

Seeing where it goes -- being open to what you are
hearing -- listening to it over and over to see if it
makes sense and retains interest -- experimenting and
having the time of your life are all 'best practices' I
recommend wholeheartedly.

> Or do y'all take a more shotgun approach and just
> program your computer/keyboard of choice to play the
> new scale, and just start messing around with it and
> see what happens?

Well Brian that's all part of the same process!

You have to play with the scale to get started!
Sometimes it can take a long time to get used to a new
scale but after working with different scales for a few
years, you find yourself able to acclimate to and get
the groove on with any new scale pretty quickly.

One tip I'll throw out is that in the early days, it is
very tempting to take an exotic scale and try to force
it into yielding itself up to producing songs that
sound exactly like common practice music to the average
listener. This can be instructive but make a conscious
effort and strive to explore the unique resources
available in these new worlds as well and you will find
yourself growing as a composer in ways you never
imagined possible.

- Jeff

Jeff,

{you wrote...}
>One tip I'll throw out is that in the early days, it is very tempting to >take an exotic scale and try to force it into yielding itself up to >producing songs that
>sound exactly like common practice music to the average listener. This can >be instructive but make a conscious effort and strive to explore the >unique resources
>available in these new worlds as well and you will find yourself growing >as a composer in ways you never imagined possible.

Briefly put: that is a GREAT idea! Very well worth exploring, and something I hadn't seen others put into words. It almost makes me think of some of Bill Sethares funkier pieces, but I hope people see this as a good possibility for themselves.

Cheers,
Jon

George Zelenz wrote:

> Brian,
>
> both approaches are valid. Compose!
>
> Let us hear your efforts.
>
> Good luck!
> George
>
>
>
>
> xbrianskix@... wrote:
>
> > Hi, yall...
> >
> > Being relatively new to microtonality, I hope you
> > forgive any errors/stupidities in my post. But having
> > dreamed up a few scales that (to me) make sense from a
> > harmonic point of view, I was wondering how y'all go
> > about building a song with a new scale?
> >
> > Having recently recovered from a year of introductory
> > music theory classes, it looks like, through the ages,
> > the way we got to where we are now (in the 12-tet
> > world) is by gradual addition of voices - cantus
> > firmi, counterpoint, up to 4-part harmony, etc...) So
> > I was wondering if anyone has tried/what your thoughts
> > are on taking a similar approach with a new scale.
> > First, build some melodies, then add a second line
> > (perhaps borrowing some "rules" from traditional
> > counterpoint, and inventing some new ones that make
> > sense for your own scale), and seeing where it goes.

> With a scale suitable for harmonic structures I think that working
> with two lines is always stimulating and challenging at the same time.
> If the scale has melodic potential I spend a long time singing and
> writing long lines, somewhat like plainchant. Then I add a second
> line. 4 parts takes much longer. And you're right - often traditional
> counterpoint gives way to new 'rules'. But there are many harmonic
> moves that we seem to like, such as cadences, and movement within the
> cadences as the tonic approaches. Exploring different temperaments
> allows you different flavours as you move harmonically. Some would
> argue that Just Intonation gets to the source of what temperaments are
> trying to reach.

The problem lies in the seemingly infinite number of scales in the
microtonal universe. It's easy to spend too much time tinkering and not
actually producing music. IMHO I'd recommend getting to know one or two
really well if you're interested in counterpoint and harmony. Remember
how long it took to get inside 12 tet? Some will disagree but I think
you need at least a year studying a new temperament or J.I. set to get
familiar.

Check out previous postings by Margo Schulter. She's one of the few who
offers illustrated solutions to simple cadences using mainly different
flavours of thirds and fifths and so on. The next step would be to use
these contrapuntally in composition.

> > Or do y'all take a more shotgun approach and just
> > program your computer/keyboard of choice to play the
> > new scale, and just start messing around with it and
> > see what happens?

That's good too but you'd still have to spend quality time to get inside
the harmonic and contrapuntal workings. I'm talking craft here rather
than art.

>
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Thanks for your time,
> > Brian Szymanski
> > bks10@...
> >

Best Wishes

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "X. J. Scott" <xjscott@e...> wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>
> > from a harmonic point of view, I was wondering how y'all go
> > about building a song with a new scale?
> >
> > Having recently recovered from a year of introductory
> > music theory classes, it looks like, through the ages,
> > the way we got to where we are now (in the 12-tet
> > world) is by gradual addition of voices - cantus
> > firmi, counterpoint, up to 4-part harmony, etc...) So
> > I was wondering if anyone has tried/what your thoughts
> > are on taking a similar approach with a new scale.
> > First, build some melodies, then add a second line, and
> > seeing where it goes.
>
> Brian, I find this method works extremely well. It
> can be done be ear.
>
> By using this method too, I find that you can converge
> on harmonic practices for your new system better than
> you can by starting out trying to play block chords
> which often results in converging upon low limit JI
> as a favorite. Starting with melody based counterpoint
> instead leaves more possibilities open to the ear.
>
> > (perhaps borrowing some "rules" from traditional
> > counterpoint)
>
> Yes, traditional 'techniques' are worth playing with to
> see how they work out. There really aren't any rules
> though except ones you consciously choose to adopt for
> a particular effect or as a personal challenge or to
> help yourself focus.
>
> >, and inventing some new ones that make
> > sense for your own scale), and seeing where it goes.
>
> Seeing where it goes -- being open to what you are
> hearing -- listening to it over and over to see if it
> makes sense and retains interest -- experimenting and
> having the time of your life are all 'best practices' I
> recommend wholeheartedly.
>
> > Or do y'all take a more shotgun approach and just
> > program your computer/keyboard of choice to play the
> > new scale, and just start messing around with it and
> > see what happens?
>
> Well Brian that's all part of the same process!
>
> You have to play with the scale to get started!
> Sometimes it can take a long time to get used to a new
> scale but after working with different scales for a few
> years, you find yourself able to acclimate to and get
> the groove on with any new scale pretty quickly.
>
> One tip I'll throw out is that in the early days, it is
> very tempting to take an exotic scale and try to force
> it into yielding itself up to producing songs that
> sound exactly like common practice music to the average
> listener. This can be instructive but make a conscious
> effort and strive to explore the unique resources
> available in these new worlds as well and you will find
> yourself growing as a composer in ways you never
> imagined possible.
>
> - Jeff

To everything Jeff said in this message, I can only reply,

"I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU MEAN"!!

Big time!!!

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...>
wrote:
>
> The problem lies in the seemingly infinite number of scales in the
> microtonal universe. It's easy to spend too much time tinkering and
not
> actually producing music. IMHO I'd recommend getting to know one
or two
> really well if you're interested in counterpoint and harmony.
Remember
> how long it took to get inside 12 tet? Some will disagree but I
think
> you need at least a year studying a new temperament or J.I. set to
get
> familiar.

I agree. Those composers who churn out works in all kinds of tunings,
seem to always leave me disappointed. And start simple -- I think
somewhere around 20 notes per octave (or whatever near-octave
interval you may have) is enough to completely break away from 12-tET
thinking while giving you a chance of actually, after a year or two,
being able to begin the experience of being a real musician in the
system. (Prent Rodgers uses the Tonality Diamond of 29 notes, but
really tends to stick to 6-note subsets for each section, in his
music that I've heard so far) Otherwise you'll just end up
translating your ingrained patterns into the new tuning system, and
though I hear quite a lot of that, it's not something that I,
personally, find appealing.

Thanks very much to all who responded to my post! I'm
grateful to the point of being almost overwhelmed by
the length and number of your informative replies! I
started writing individual replies for everyone, but
then I realized 8 messages that esentially said "hey,
that makes sense", or "I agree" would kind of be a
waste of everyone's time (I only responded to Jacky's
seperately because I was a little uncertain as to
exactly what the hell he was talking about for a few
sentences there ;-) In any event, I feel like each
response showed me just a little bit more where Tao
lives... Thus, I shall cease talking and begin
walking. Details at 11.

Cheers and thanks again,
Brian

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_1440.html#1445

> Jeff,
>
> {you wrote...}
> >One tip I'll throw out is that in the early days, it is very
tempting to
> >take an exotic scale and try to force it into yielding itself up
to
> >producing songs that
> >sound exactly like common practice music to the average listener.
This can
> >be instructive but make a conscious effort and strive to explore
the
> >unique resources
> >available in these new worlds as well and you will find yourself
growing
> >as a composer in ways you never imagined possible.
>
> Briefly put: that is a GREAT idea! Very well worth exploring, and
something
> I hadn't seen others put into words. It almost makes me think of
some of
> Bill Sethares funkier pieces, but I hope people see this as a good
> possibility for themselves.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

Hmmm. I personally find that this method is too "restrictive" and
will not allow the composer to explore aspects of the scale that is
only *endemic* to that particular scale...

Just *my* opinion, Jon...

JP

Joe,

{you wrote...}
>Hmmm. I personally find that this method is too "restrictive" and will >not allow the composer to explore aspects of the scale that is only >*endemic* to that particular scale...

Curious. If what you are doing is setting up a scale and exploring it, how can that be viewed as restrictive? I see it similar to having a gamelan built for you, in a particular tuning, and then creating pieces as you use it. Finding the resources of a scale/tuning, in both the melodic and harmonic realm, can *certainly* be unleashed by the ear, as well as by all the machinations of plotting out the graphs.

From what I've seen. In any event, both ways are valid, and exploratory methods are very reflective of the personalities of the explorers, no?

Cheers,
Jon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_1440.html#1560

> Joe,
>
> {you wrote...}
> >Hmmm. I personally find that this method is too "restrictive" and
will
> >not allow the composer to explore aspects of the scale that is
only
> >*endemic* to that particular scale...
>
> Curious. If what you are doing is setting up a scale and exploring
it, how
> can that be viewed as restrictive? I see it similar to having a
gamelan
> built for you, in a particular tuning, and then creating pieces as
you use
> it. Finding the resources of a scale/tuning, in both the melodic
and
> harmonic realm, can *certainly* be unleashed by the ear, as well as
by all
> the machinations of plotting out the graphs.
>
> From what I've seen. In any event, both ways are valid, and
exploratory
> methods are very reflective of the personalities of the explorers,
no?
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

Hi Jon...

My impression from that post was that the suggestion was to take a 12-
tET "normal" melody and try to "shoehorn" it into some other scale...

But, possibly I misunderstood the post.....

JP

Joe,

{you wrote...}
>My impression from that post was that the suggestion was to take a 12-tET >"normal" melody and try to "shoehorn" it into some other scale...
>
>But, possibly I misunderstood the post.....

I hope so, otherwise *I* misunderstood it. I thought we were merely talking about the ability to 'play' in a new tuning and discover things by ear - the 'improvising' end of the argument, as opposed to the 'composed' part of the argument.

While occasional 'shoehorning' might be of interest (and I don't think it is that different than using an algorithmic tool to find some material), it probably wouldn't bear a lot of fruit.

Back to the new setup, which is now running, and I'm learning to program the TX-802, and I'm going to load Scala and FTS, and...

oh oh. I have to send out a Partch note, and make pages for microtonal.org, and...

Crap.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> Finding the resources of a scale/tuning, in both the melodic and
> harmonic realm, can *certainly* be unleashed by the ear, as well as
by all
> the machinations of plotting out the graphs.
>
> From what I've seen. In any event, both ways are valid, and
exploratory
> methods are very reflective of the personalities of the explorers,
no?

What if someone (me for instance) uses both methods together,
allowing the ear to always be the final arbiter? Does such a person
have a split personality? Or rather an "integrative" one? And what
about the methods ultimately used to produce musical pieces? Some
compose by carefully plotting things out on staff paper, while others
use improvisation (perhaps preferably with a live audience) as a
primary music-making tool. Clearly, if there is any correlation
between "method" and "personality", it is far from a dichotomous
one . . .

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> My impression from that post was that the suggestion was to take a
12-
> tET "normal" melody and try to "shoehorn" it into some other
scale...

That was my impression too, or something similar -- say a
conventional meantone chord progression so shoehorned.

Paul,

{you wrote...}
>--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
>
> > Finding the resources of a scale/tuning, in both the melodic and
> > harmonic realm, can *certainly* be unleashed by the ear, as well as
>by all
> > the machinations of plotting out the graphs.
> >
> > From what I've seen. In any event, both ways are valid, and
>exploratory
> > methods are very reflective of the personalities of the explorers,
>no?
>
>What if someone (me for instance) uses both methods together,
>allowing the ear to always be the final arbiter?

Funny, that sounds just like what I said: "both ways are valid".

>Does such a person have a split personality? Or rather an "integrative" one?

I would 'hope' it's the second, but I'm no psychiatrist!

>And what about the methods ultimately used to produce musical pieces? Some >compose by carefully plotting things out on staff paper, while others use >improvisation (perhaps preferably with a live audience) as a primary >music-making tool. Clearly, if there is any correlation between "method" >and "personality", it is far from a dichotomous one . . .

No, I didn't mean to make it sound dichotomous. But I do believe - and this is strictly a *personal* observation, after being involved in music longer than *you've* been alive! - that the process, be it compositional or performance, of making music is quite linked with the personality of the person doing the making. If they have multi-faceted personalities, that encompass both left- and right-brained investigations, then I suppose their end result will reflect some percentages of each.

(this is weird: either I've written virtually the identical paragraph before, or I just had a deja vu moment...).

I don't know about you, but I frequently find that I can tell, by ear, when music has been created intuitively, and when it has been labored over. Not every time, but, well, frequently. And it is usually reflective of the creator.

Cheers,
Jon

Paul,

{you wrote...}
>What if someone (me for instance) uses both methods together, allowing the >ear to always be the final arbiter? Does such a person have a split >personality? Or rather an "integrative" one?

Boy, it's late; I really slipped a bit on the last reply. You weren't objecting to either/or, you were wondering about both methods at once, right?

Hmmm. I don't know your stuff enough to hazard _my_ judgement on this point; you certainly aren't a 'composer' in the traditional sense (at least the pieces I've heard weren't complex, written-out pieces). I imagine that if you have ideas from your scale/harmony research and you start putting them into play (pun intended, I guess!) and can successfully loosen up, then you will bridge the gap of the two methods.

You're going to have to be special, though: it is awfully easy to 'hear' someone thinking on the bandstand, and not many things will cause me to run from the room so quickly. But it's not like it doesn't happen, as we can see in such great artist like John Coltrane.

Can you, Paul Erlich, successfully leave the thinking behind and play purely from the heart? Can you, Jon Szanto, stop droolingly emoting on stage and do some tuning study and get a handle on how all these notes work together?

Only time will tell... :)

Cheers,
Jon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_1440.html#1569

> --- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...>
wrote:
>
> > Finding the resources of a scale/tuning, in both the melodic and
> > harmonic realm, can *certainly* be unleashed by the ear, as well
as
> by all
> > the machinations of plotting out the graphs.
> >
> > From what I've seen. In any event, both ways are valid, and
> exploratory
> > methods are very reflective of the personalities of the
explorers,
> no?
>
> What if someone (me for instance) uses both methods together,
> allowing the ear to always be the final arbiter? Does such a person
> have a split personality? Or rather an "integrative" one? And what
> about the methods ultimately used to produce musical pieces? Some
> compose by carefully plotting things out on staff paper, while
others
> use improvisation (perhaps preferably with a live audience) as a
> primary music-making tool. Clearly, if there is any correlation
> between "method" and "personality", it is far from a dichotomous
> one . . .

Hi Paul and other MMMers,

Actually, I think the post you made earlier in this Forum, which was
similar to this most recent post made a lot of sense.

Essentially, even though one may go by *ear* and "experiment" to
create music, *as one goes along* one finds the necessity for certain
constraints or structures. They may be elaboration of "traditional"
counterpoint, perhaps the assessment of overall structure (I find
myself labeling themes and so forth but only after I'm *well* into a
piece) or composing by common-tone lattices, whatever.

But the *theoretical* aspect is a *facilitation* to what is ALREADY
going on... rather than the *determinator* of the outcome.

Personally, I feel it's *very* easy to hear in a composer's work when
they work the *other* way around, and let the "precompositional"
structure determine the piece, rather than the ear...

Just some ideas...

JP

Joe,

{you wrote...}
>Essentially, even though one may go by *ear* and "experiment" to create >music, *as one goes along* one finds the necessity for certain constraints >or structures.

"One" is the key word: this is how you work, and possibly how others work as well. I don't happen to compose quite that way, and a lot of music - valid music - is made in ways quite different. So "necessity" shouldn't be extrapolated any further than your own front porch.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_1440.html#1574

> Joe,
>
> {you wrote...}
> >Essentially, even though one may go by *ear* and "experiment" to
create
> >music, *as one goes along* one finds the necessity for certain
constraints
> >or structures.
>
> "One" is the key word: this is how you work, and possibly how
others work
> as well. I don't happen to compose quite that way, and a lot of
music -
> valid music - is made in ways quite different. So "necessity"
shouldn't be
> extrapolated any further than your own front porch.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

Hi Jon!

You are quite right... and "one" refers to the only person on my
front porch, me...

However, there's no front porch in New York, so actually *nobody* is
there....

JP

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> I don't know about you, but I frequently find that I can tell, by
ear, when
> music has been created intuitively, and when it has been labored
over. Not
> every time, but, well, frequently. And it is usually reflective of
the creator.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

My music is more of the intuitive sort, wouldn't you say? At least,
all the reactions I get to my music are on an emotional level, rarely
on an intellectual level.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Paul,
>
> {you wrote...}
> >What if someone (me for instance) uses both methods together,
allowing the
> >ear to always be the final arbiter? Does such a person have a
split
> >personality? Or rather an "integrative" one?
>
> Boy, it's late; I really slipped a bit on the last reply. You
weren't
> objecting to either/or, you were wondering about both methods at
once, right?
>
> Hmmm. I don't know your stuff enough to hazard _my_ judgement on
this
> point; you certainly aren't a 'composer' in the traditional sense
(at least
> the pieces I've heard weren't complex, written-out pieces). I
imagine that
> if you have ideas from your scale/harmony research and you start
putting
> them into play (pun intended, I guess!) and can successfully loosen
up,
> then you will bridge the gap of the two methods.
>
> You're going to have to be special, though: it is awfully easy
to 'hear'
> someone thinking on the bandstand, and not many things will cause
me to run
> from the room so quickly. But it's not like it doesn't happen, as
we can
> see in such great artist like John Coltrane.
>
> Can you, Paul Erlich, successfully leave the thinking behind and
play
> purely from the heart?

These are strange reactions, Jon. I'm usually perceived as among the
loosest and most heart-playing musicians in my band, at least.
Hmm . . .

Paul,

{you wrote...}
>My music is more of the intuitive sort, wouldn't you say?

Yes, I think so. Wouldn't you agree that "Tibia" is least characteristic of your 'output'? And, as for me, I could put up 4 different pieces and there would be a pretty wide span, but when I listen to my own music (not easy, believe me...) I can identify more strongly with the pieces that flowed rather than those either worked on or structured by a pre-existing determinant.

>At least, all the reactions I get to my music are on an emotional level, >rarely
>on an intellectual level.

Interesting. You must find a difference in viewpoint, however, between when you play in the clubs and when you present music to the forums, yes?

Cheers,
Jon

Paul,

{you wrote...}
>These are strange reactions, Jon. I'm usually perceived as among the >loosest and most heart-playing musicians in my band, at least. Hmm . . .

Oh, don't read hardly anything into those comments! As I said, I don't know your stuff *too* well, and what I've heard from the stretch band I'd very much agree with your comment (as opposed to Madd Duxx or earlier recordings). Certainly you sound very much more 'at home' in that environment, and it most certainly sounds like you are enjoying it.

Which is the bottom line, as far as *I* am concerned! Rock on...

Cheers,
Jon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Paul,
>
> {you wrote...}
> >My music is more of the intuitive sort, wouldn't you say?
>
> Yes, I think so.

Cool!

> Wouldn't you agree that "Tibia" is least characteristic of
> your 'output'?

Well, that one was "specially inspired", so it will always
seem "different" to me.
>
> >At least, all the reactions I get to my music are on an emotional
level,
> >rarely
> >on an intellectual level.
>
> Interesting. You must find a difference in viewpoint, however,
between when
> you play in the clubs and when you present music to the forums, yes?

Well, for one thing, I've had 13 years and plenty of role models to
make my 12-tET guitar playing really flow . . . on a microtonal
instrument I'm still a baby and there's virtually nobody who inspires
me on that level.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> Which is the bottom line, as far as *I* am concerned! Rock on...

I will, and I promise it will be microtonal someday . . . when it's
good and ready!

(uh oh, somebody on the E coast is up late...)

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> Well, for one thing, I've had 13 years and plenty of role models to
> make my 12-tET guitar playing really flow . . .

That'll do it.

> on a microtonal instrument I'm still a baby and there's virtually
> nobody who inspires me on that level.

Well, just do it yourself, then! (as I'm sure you will) BTW, sitting
on the desk now are "The Story of Mathematics", by Richard
Mankiewicz, and "Men of Mathematics - The Lives and Achievements of
the Great Mathematicians from Zeno to Poincare", by E. T. Bell.

Who needs sleep?

Cheers,
Jon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...>
wrote:
>
> > Which is the bottom line, as far as *I* am concerned! Rock on...
>
> I will, and I promise it will be microtonal someday . . . when it's
> good and ready!

You're no fun when you hide your warts from us... :)

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > --- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Which is the bottom line, as far as *I* am concerned! Rock on...
> >
> > I will, and I promise it will be microtonal someday . . . when
it's
> > good and ready!
>
> You're no fun when you hide your warts from us... :)

Well, until then, it'll sound stiff and unsure . . . but I'll see
what I can do about letting more of it get into y'all's ears.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "Jonathan M. Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> what I've heard from the stretch band I'd very
> much agree with your comment

BTW, these pieces are getting more and more "composed", with more
sections and whatnot, but still lots of improv. This is the organic
way for me to work.

> (as opposed to Madd Duxx)

Mad Duxx sounded more "intellectual" than "intuitive" to you?

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> Mad Duxx sounded more "intellectual" than "intuitive" to you?

Well, I only meant that the new band seems more your element, and the
looseness and heart-driven playing is more evident.

Ah, words about music. Dancing about architecture, etc.

Cheers,
Jon (bedtime...)

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > Mad Duxx sounded more "intellectual" than "intuitive" to you?
>
> Well, I only meant that the new band seems more your element, and
the
> looseness and heart-driven playing is more evident.

Also, I think I'm acquiring those qualities at an accelerating
rate . . . I'm much further along on them now than over a year ago
when those clips were made.
>
> Ah, words about music. Dancing about architecture, etc.

Yeah, enough of this self-indulgence on my part . . .