Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic composition in Blackjack

Joe and Carl,

{you wrote...}
>I think sticking to a scale is good approach -- you can get deeper into it.

I think you are right, and I think Joe has chosen a very wise way of working, *especially* for him.

>But there's an idea floating in some microtonal circles that you have to try lots of scales to know what microtonality is about, but I don't think it's true.

I don't think that is even close to true. One can sort through a lot of things, and expose themselves to the panorama of tunings that exist (or can exist). But ultimately the best creative work will be when one starts to restrict their materials to gain the fullest understanding of them, to absorb them to the point that the compositional process becomes natural.

One of the things that _always_ amazed me about the individual parts to Partch's music, was how well each of them 'laid' on the instrument. To a certain extent, this also means having absorbed the gestalt of his instrumental creations as well, but they all worked under one tuning umbrella, and the parts - for the most - seemed to be very natural extensions of both the tuning and the instrument is was written for. Had he spent time dabbling in dozens of tunings, I doubt this would have happened, and he would have had a far less cohesive output.

Cheers,
Jon

🔗David Beardsley <db@...>

Carl Lumma wrote:

>At 08:32 PM 1/4/2007, you wrote:
> >
>>I just posted something on the "other" list on this topic. "Stuck in a >>rut??" Possibly... or maybe the scale is just working for me and I >>need a lifetime to master it (as some might try to "master" 12-tET...??)
>> >>
>
>I think sticking to a scale is good approach -- you can get deeper
>into it. On the other hand, trying lots and lots of scales is good
>too. But there's an idea floating in some microtonal circles that
>you have to try lots of scales to know what microtonality is about,
>but I don't think it's true.
>

I mostly stick with the same intervals I've been using for years, unless I'm looking for some specific effect.

--
* David Beardsley
* microtonal guitar
* http://biink.com/db

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>

Carl,

{you wrote...}
>Hardly surprising, considering he was a master player/improviser on most (all?) of his instruments.

Yes, but how did he become that master? I think a lot of it had to do with his deciding on a tuning system that met his compositional needs at a fairly early juncture, sticking with that system, and building up his arsenal (instrumental and compositional) around it. While Harry didn't really sit around improvising, he certainly *could* play almost all of his instruments well, and he had a very deep level of understanding on even those that he might not be totally swell on. He wasn't a great percussionist, but he sure as hell knew how one would approach his instruments. To this day I marvel at unravelling some of his Boo parts, that looked absolutely wicked on first practicing:

http://www.corporeal.com/boo_part_hi.html

...and after a short time, you realized that they just flowed. Pretty special.

I _know_ that there is a lot to be learned by studying various tunings, but I really do think that composers who want to create a significant body of work (whatever that means) do themselves a favor by really delving into one, or at least a very few, related, tunings, rather than sample dozens like walking down the salad bar.

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

At 12:33 AM 1/6/2007, you wrote:
>Carl,
>
>{you wrote...}
>>Hardly surprising, considering he was a master player/improviser on
>>most (all?) of his instruments.
>
>Yes, but how did he become that master? I think a lot of it had to do
>with his deciding on a tuning system that met his compositional needs
>at a fairly early juncture,

I'm going to have to disagree with this. The notion that Partch
had early-on decided on a 43-tone scale and that all his instruments
were tuned to it is... completely false. Partch's instruments were
all tuned differently. They had in common the pitches of his
"monophonic" system, but this system was a work in progress for
much of his life. He was a master player/improviser on all of his
instruments because he was incredibly driven and spent a lot of
time playing them!

>While Harry didn't really sit around improvising,

Is that so?

>I _know_ that there is a lot to be learned by studying various
>tunings, but I really do think that composers who want to create a
>significant body of work (whatever that means) do themselves a favor
>by really delving into one, or at least a very few, related, tunings,
>rather than sample dozens like walking down the salad bar.

I disagree here as well. There are microtonalists who have tried
many different systems with good results in all of them. This is
because tuning is only one small part of music.

-Carl

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>

Carl,

You aren't entirely accurate.

{you wrote...}
>The notion that Partch had early-on decided on a 43-tone scale and that all his instruments were tuned to it is... completely false.

No it is not, and a good reading of his lifespan from the 1920's to the 1970's will bear this out. I said "fairly early" and that it on the mark. He toyed with a couple of variations, especially when still working with the viola. Once he decided to retune the reed organs, he wasn't going back and forth between various tunings.

>Partch's instruments were all tuned differently.

But all within the subset of his diamond.

>They had in common the pitches of his "monophonic" system, but this system was a work in progress for much of his life.

No, not for much of his life.

>He was a master player/improviser on all of his instruments because he was incredibly driven and spent a lot of time playing them!

Hmmmm. You spent more time with Harry than I did?

>>While Harry didn't really sit around improvising,
>
>Is that so?

Yeah, that is pretty much so. Certainly not in the sense that any folk/jazz/etc musician sits around improvising. I'm not saying that he didn't work _at_ the instruments when coming up with parts, but you could tell when he would go to play something that he had to work hard to recall what it was he had written, and the out-takes I have from many of his recording sessions show that once he had written a part, he had to practice it just like anyone else.

>I disagree here as well. There are microtonalists who have tried many different systems with good results in all of them. This is because tuning is only one small part of music.

Total agreement with the last statement, certainly. And there are people like Lou Harrison who is so independently musical that he *is* able to work with a lot of, if similar, tunings. I still believe the best work comes from dedication to a smaller set of tunings, along with the fact that people can certainly write many pieces of music that all suck in just one intonation. More often than not, that is *my* story! :)

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

it seems the limits each of Partch's instruments was a matter of what was available or practical to him.
When he could he would tune and use as much as possible of what he dreamed about.
Even during a period when music was starting to incorporate such elements and his use of various jazz musician, his notation remained traditional in concept and execution.
Erv has mentioned to me that he was not that into improvisation. that his music can capture this feeling is quite amazing.

He was anything but stiff.
Carl Lumma wrote:
> At 12:33 AM 1/6/2007, you wrote:
> >> Carl,
>>
>> {you wrote...}
>> >>> Hardly surprising, considering he was a master player/improviser on >>> most (all?) of his instruments.
>>> >> Yes, but how did he become that master? I think a lot of it had to do >> with his deciding on a tuning system that met his compositional needs >> at a fairly early juncture,
>> >
> I'm going to have to disagree with this. The notion that Partch
> had early-on decided on a 43-tone scale and that all his instruments
> were tuned to it is... completely false. Partch's instruments were
> all tuned differently. They had in common the pitches of his
> "monophonic" system, but this system was a work in progress for
> much of his life. He was a master player/improviser on all of his
> instruments because he was incredibly driven and spent a lot of
> time playing them!
>
> >> While Harry didn't really sit around improvising,
>> >
> Is that so?
>
> >> I _know_ that there is a lot to be learned by studying various >> tunings, but I really do think that composers who want to create a >> significant body of work (whatever that means) do themselves a favor >> by really delving into one, or at least a very few, related, tunings, >> rather than sample dozens like walking down the salad bar.
>> >
> I disagree here as well. There are microtonalists who have tried
> many different systems with good results in all of them. This is
> because tuning is only one small part of music.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/index.html>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main/index.asp> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

>>The notion that Partch had early-on decided on a 43-tone scale and
>>that all his instruments were tuned to it is... completely false.
>
>No it is not, and a good reading of his lifespan from the 1920's to
>the 1970's will bear this out. I said "fairly early" and that it on
>the mark. He toyed with a couple of variations, especially when still
>working with the viola. Once he decided to retune the reed organs, he
>wasn't going back and forth between various tunings.

What you're saying goes against Partch's own vehement statements
on the subject.

>>Partch's instruments were all tuned differently.
>
>But all within the subset of his diamond.

Most Partch instruments had pitches outside the diamond. They
played subsets of the 43-tone scale, perhaps, but usually very
radical subsets of it. And of course he wrote for voice and viola
and other instruments with flexible pitch. The evidence supports
that Partch wrote in Just Intonation, but not in any fixed scale,
even so much as a 43-tone scale makes any sense.

>>He was a master player/improviser on all of his instruments because
>he was incredibly driven and spent a lot of time playing them!
>
>Hmmmm. You spent more time with Harry than I did?

Stop playing this card. Exactly how long did you know Harry?

>>>While Harry didn't really sit around improvising,
>>
>>Is that so?
>
>Yeah, that is pretty much so. Certainly not in the sense that any
>folk/jazz/etc musician sits around improvising.

That's not what I said. I've seen Partch play these instruments,
and his level of ability can't be reached without serious time
spend behind them.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>

Carl,

{you wrote...}
>What you're saying goes against Partch's own vehement statements on the subject.

I'd be interested in his "vehement statements" (noting the plural) where he discusses the many tuning systems he employed over the years in his compositions.

>Most Partch instruments had pitches outside the diamond.

Yeah? You mean like the glissandos on the Kitharas and Harmonic Canons? I think you are on anything from shaky ground to complete quicksand on this matter.

>Exactly how long did you know Harry?

The point being that *how* he came to craft his instrumental parts, and *how* he approached playing the instruments, was something that interested me a great deal when I was first playing his music, and during that same time working with him. Harry and I chatted about this on a number of occasions, so it is just a matter of having a fuller picture of the process and habits than can be gleaned from reading about it.

>That's not what I said.

You said "he was a master player/improviser on most (all?) of his instruments." I'd be interested to see/hear something that you have where he does a master improvisation.

>I've seen Partch play these instruments

Yeah, me too.

>... and his level of ability can't be reached without serious time spend behind them.

Of course, which was also my point.

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

>>Most Partch instruments had pitches outside the diamond.
>
>Yeah? You mean like the glissandos on the Kitharas and Harmonic
>Canons? I think you are on anything from shaky ground to complete
>quicksand on this matter.

The strings of the Canons were often tuned to non-diamond
pitches, as was the Adapted Guitar, Adapted Viola, Chomolodeons,
and the list goes on.

>>Exactly how long did you know Harry?
>
>The point being that *how* he came to craft his instrumental parts,
>and *how* he approached playing the instruments, was something that
>interested me a great deal when I was first playing his music, and
>during that same time working with him. Harry and I chatted about this
>on a number of occasions, so it is just a matter of having a fuller
>picture of the process and habits than can be gleaned from reading
>about it.

You didn't answer the question, and what you've written and
said over the years has failed to convince more than one reader
that it contains more than a handful of useful or even
intelligible statements.

>>That's not what I said.
>
>You said "he was a master player/improviser on most (all?) of his
>instruments." I'd be interested to see/hear something that you have
>where he does a master improvisation.

I think you're taking 'improvisation' here too literally.

>>... and his level of ability can't be reached without serious time
>spend behind them.
>
>Of course, which was also my point.

It was my point, which for some reason you took issue with.

-Carl

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>

Carl,

It really is too bad that you have to turn things so personal, so I won't belabor any of this, I really don't have the heart for it today.

I should have explicitly written "the resources of the expanded diamond", which most people connect with Partch and the dreaded number 43. It is these 43 chosen pitches that Partch worked with, and while he certainly used subsets, etc, he didn't all of a sudden jump to another system entirely. But you knew that.

{you wrote...}
>Adapted Viola

1/1, 3/2, 9/8, 27/16 - all within the system

>Chomolodeons

The 43 pitches are represented.

>>>Exactly how long did you know Harry?

On improvisation I was too literal in interpreting your words, and on how long I was not literal enough. <sigh>

>You didn't answer the question

I met Harry in the fall of 1970, and knew and worked with/for him until just before he passed away in September of 1974.

>... and what you've written and said over the years has failed to convince more than one reader that it contains more than a handful of useful or even
>intelligible statements.

I'm so sorry to disappoint you and anyone else, but I'll try to always be as intelligible as possible.

Jon

🔗Daniel Wolf <djwolf@...>

Many of Partch's instruments with fixed pitches had tones outside of the diamond, and the instruments with more flexible pitch often went beyond the diamond and the 43-tone scale. These go far beyond the portamenti tones on the strings with glass slides. The adapted viola had brads at pitches outside of the 43-tone scale, perhaps a remnant of an earlier scheme, but present nonetheless, In some scores, even the Chromelodeon is asked to switch reeds in the course of the piece. The diamond was indeed his basic harmonic environment, but he used many chords beyond those 12, including many chords that were not simple harmonic or subharmonic structure. The 43-tone scale was indeed the most "chromatic" (if you will) environment in his ensemble and was embodied by the tuning of Chromelodeon I and the Boos (and partially, on the Eucal Blossom), and was microtonal enough to similate a non-discrete portamento, but it was never really a "scale", but a resource.

The more important point concerns the relationship between Partch's theoretical project and the role that theory played in his actual compositions. With the exception of Dark Brother and perhaps parts of Ring Around the Moon, you cannot locate anything in Partch's music where he is strictly composing "around the diamond". His music had two impulses acting against this. The first was his early interest in setting the contours of the spoken voice. In one of the Psalm settings, one can hear a precisely-transcribed microtonal vocal line accompanied by near-random harmonies, as if he struggled within his"monophonic fabric" to find something, or anything, that would work. The second impulse came with the introduction of percussion instruments and the largely instrumental character of his mature music. His interests in rhythmic ideas, texture, and instrument-idiomatic patterning became, in many places in his music, much more important than any tonal design. While the percussion instruments did not go outside of his "fabric" of tones, his usage of those tones was often well beyond the uses implied by a just intonation ideal (Kraig Grady's music, on the other hand, is much more strict about tonal practice). At at least two point, Partch himself referred to his own music as atonal. Indeed, the are portions of Caston & Pollux and Petals that are difficult to characterize in any other way.

We know all too little about Partch's compositional procedures, and his pre-compositional procedures in particular. We know, for example, that he came to Erv Wilson once with a problem in harmony -- he kept coming, intuitively to an odd combination of pitches. Wilson realized quickly that Partch was trying to approximate a modulation to the dominant! Improvisation certainly played a role in his compositional practice, but this is true of most composers, just trying things out at the keyboard, mostly, but also, and increasingly, Partch's unique instrument designs created a demand that the composer actually compose at each individual instrument. (One thinks of Stravinsky renting a cymbalon, at which he composed his _Ragtime_; otherwise, Stravinsky always composed directly at his moderated (muted) piano). In any case, whatever Partch's improvisations were like, he always (with small exceptions. like the crychord, on which other musicians improvised in performance) wrote them down, and learned to play the actual parts from score.

Daniel Wolf
Frankfurt

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

Thanks, Daniel, for this excellent post, which agrees perfectly
with my understanding of Partch and his processes.

-Carl

At 06:12 AM 1/7/2007, you wrote:
>Many of Partch's instruments with fixed pitches had tones outside of the
>diamond, and the instruments with more flexible pitch often went beyond
>the diamond and the 43-tone scale. These go far beyond the portamenti
>tones on the strings with glass slides. The adapted viola had brads at
>pitches outside of the 43-tone scale, perhaps a remnant of an earlier
>scheme, but present nonetheless, In some scores, even the Chromelodeon
>is asked to switch reeds in the course of the piece. The diamond was
>indeed his basic harmonic environment, but he used many chords beyond
>those 12, including many chords that were not simple harmonic or
>subharmonic structure. The 43-tone scale was indeed the most "chromatic"
>(if you will) environment in his ensemble and was embodied by the tuning
>of Chromelodeon I and the Boos (and partially, on the Eucal Blossom),
>and was microtonal enough to similate a non-discrete portamento, but it
>was never really a "scale", but a resource.
>
>The more important point concerns the relationship between Partch's
>theoretical project and the role that theory played in his actual
>compositions. With the exception of Dark Brother and perhaps parts of
>Ring Around the Moon, you cannot locate anything in Partch's music where
>he is strictly composing "around the diamond". His music had two
>impulses acting against this. The first was his early interest in
>setting the contours of the spoken voice. In one of the Psalm settings,
>one can hear a precisely-transcribed microtonal vocal line accompanied
>by near-random harmonies, as if he struggled within his"monophonic
>fabric" to find something, or anything, that would work. The second
>impulse came with the introduction of percussion instruments and the
>largely instrumental character of his mature music. His interests in
>rhythmic ideas, texture, and instrument-idiomatic patterning became, in
>many places in his music, much more important than any tonal design.
>While the percussion instruments did not go outside of his "fabric" of
>tones, his usage of those tones was often well beyond the uses implied
>by a just intonation ideal (Kraig Grady's music, on the other hand, is
>much more strict about tonal practice). At at least two point, Partch
>himself referred to his own music as atonal. Indeed, the are portions of
>Caston & Pollux and Petals that are difficult to characterize in any
>other way.
>
>We know all too little about Partch's compositional procedures, and his
>pre-compositional procedures in particular. We know, for example, that
>he came to Erv Wilson once with a problem in harmony -- he kept coming,
>intuitively to an odd combination of pitches. Wilson realized quickly
>that Partch was trying to approximate a modulation to the dominant!
>Improvisation certainly played a role in his compositional practice, but
>this is true of most composers, just trying things out at the keyboard,
>mostly, but also, and increasingly, Partch's unique instrument designs
>created a demand that the composer actually compose at each individual
>instrument. (One thinks of Stravinsky renting a cymbalon, at which he
>composed his _Ragtime_; otherwise, Stravinsky always composed directly
>at his moderated (muted) piano). In any case, whatever Partch's
>improvisations were like, he always (with small exceptions. like the
>crychord, on which other musicians improvised in performance) wrote them
>down, and learned to play the actual parts from score.
>
>Daniel Wolf
>Frankfurt

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>

Daniel,

{you wrote...}
>Many of Partch's instruments with fixed pitches had tones outside of the diamond...

As I mentioned in an earlier reply, using the term "diamond" was an unfortunate token choice on my part, but meant to reply to his system for composing in JI, with the full complement of his 43 chosen pitches.

>The adapted viola had brads at pitches outside of the 43-tone scale, perhaps a remnant of an earlier scheme, but present nonetheless.

Having moved on from trials and errors, there wasn't any compelling need to remove the brads.

>In some scores, even the Chromelodeon is asked to switch reeds in the course of the piece.

None of which, however, threw him into an entirely different set of resources. It isn't like someone composing in 17tet, hitting a switch, and now he's in 5 limit JI.

>The 43-tone scale was indeed the most "chromatic" (if you will) environment in his ensemble and was embodied by the tuning of Chromelodeon I and the Boos (and partially, on the Eucal Blossom), and was microtonal enough to similate a non-discrete portamento, but it was never really a "scale", but a resource.

Exactly. Some pieces utilized complete sections of the 43 on the canons, very much effecting your "discrete portamento".

>The more important point concerns the relationship between Partch's theoretical project and the role that theory played in his actual compositions.

Yes. One of the problems is that many people 'read' Partch and get so stuck on his theoretical investigations that they can't get past that into the actual compositional usage of the materials.

>His interests in rhythmic ideas, texture, and instrument-idiomatic patterning became, in many places in his music, much more important than any tonal design.

Very much so.

>Improvisation certainly played a role in his compositional practice, but this is true of most composers, just trying things out at the keyboard, mostly, but also, and increasingly, Partch's unique instrument designs created a demand that the composer actually compose at each individual instrument.

Exactly.

>In any case, whatever Partch's improvisations were like, he always (with small exceptions. like the crychord, on which other musicians improvised in performance) wrote them down, and learned to play the actual parts from score.

Another key point that Partch was not interested in being an improvisor is the fact that - outside of said Crychord and Drone Devil parts - he didn't ask his musicians to improvise either, but notated everything he wanted to hear. It wasn't that he didn't tolerate improvisation, and the occasional improvisations that his Gate 5 ensemble members played in Sausalito during breaks from rehearsal gave rise to his Chorus of Lost Musicians in "The Bewitched", including the fact that the instruments/instrumentalists enter one by one, seemingly discovering the instruments for the first time.

Partch left us a lot of grey areas, but he certainly didn't spend the majority of his life looking through a lot of different tuning systems to find something that worked - he had what he needed pretty early on.

Cheers,
Jon

composition in Blackjack

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>

🔗David Beardsley <db@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>

🔗Daniel Wolf <djwolf@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@...>