For Kraig: Notation and "portability"

Dear Kraig,

Please let me try to comment a bit on your fine reply to some comments
and questions I raised in a discussion about Jacob's ideas for
compositional projects and events, and some dilemmas of notation
regarding what was then a piece I had not yet posted:

<http://www.bestII.com/~mschulter/LaPacifica.mp3>
<http://www.bestII.com/~mschulter/LaPacifica_Score.txt>
<http://www.bestII.com/~mschulter/zest24-diat_enh6_Bb.scl>

> I guess the question of a score would be what need you might want to
> fulfill. if not both

> The advantage to a keyboard or even conventional tuning of how you play it
> would be that others could play if, if that is your goal ,or if you
> decided to change the tuning

This was actually the object of the method I decided on, an ASCII
score first giving the specific tuning of the notes, and then using
alphabetical notation to define the desired intervals in more generic
terms which could be sung or played in various shades of intonation.

> it would be easy to do so by changing the tuning of your keyboard
> or others might wish to do so with something close good for
> comparisons. Sagittal would convey the actual intervals who those
> you might want to give a hearing and compositional aid to a
> recording. Also since we don't have allot of examples of Sagittal
> in the wild,it might brings things to light that can't be as
> apparent by just going through what people think they might need.

Certainly I agree that Sagittal should be better understood the more
it is used for a variety of musics. My first reflection on an approach
for this piece might be to see if there is a Sagittal convention for
288-EDO, since I could approximate Zest-24 and this seven-note subset
of it quite accurately in that -- although a JI approach is of
interest also.

> Good music seems to be able to survive different changes of
> timbre. Sometimes some group comes together plays something not
> written specifically for what they have and it works amazing well.

Here I much agree, and Jon L. Smith's arrangement of my piece is a
nice example:

<http://zebox.com/jlsmith/music>

The interesting question is whether an ensemble might tend to adjust
tuning somewhat to fit timbre, as well as vice versa. For example,
here's the scale for my piece in the original region, with pardon
begged for any inconsistencies in rounding the cents:

Bb C C* Eb F G G* Bb
0 204 254 492 708 900 950 1200
204 50 237 217 192 50 250

Here the small minor third and seventh are represented by intervals of
about 254 cents (~22:19) and 950 cents (~26:15, for example), and we
get a kind of soft diatonic with steps of 237 and 250 cents.

This is the tuning in which I composed my original version, and the
timbre is somewhat mellow, as Jacky Ligon put it, so that Bb-C* at 254
cents and F-G* at 242 cents will sound as imperfectly concordant minor
thirds in some resolutions for three or four voices, playing somewhat
the same role as the simpler 7:6 at 267 cents. Even more delicate is a
sonority Eb-G*-Bb-C* at 0-458-708-963 cents. That 458-cent interval is
very exciting, and I wanted to have the sonority radiant and thrilling
but not too clashing.

However, other styles of tuning are possible -- in Zest-24, or by
flexible pitch performers who obviously aren't going exactly to follow
any fixed temperament. For example:

Bb C Db Eb F G Ab Bb
0 204 275 492 708 900 983 1200
204 71 237 217 192 83 250

In this version, Eb-Ab becomes a usual 492-cent fourth (close to
85:64, if one wants a harmonic JI equivalent), so that Eb-Ab-Bb-Db at
0-492-708-983 cents isn't too far from conventional 20th-century
quintal/quartal harmony with a septimal cast because of the narrower
983-cent minor seventh and upper 275-cent minor third by comparison
with a simple 18:24:27:32 (0-498-702-996 cents).

If singers are going for the simplest ratios that fit the general
style, however, then we might get something like this transposition:

Eb F F* Ab Bb C C* Eb
0 217 267 492 708 913 963 1200
217 50 225 217 204 50 237

Now Ab-C* is an almost just 21:16, with Ab-C*-Eb-F* at 0-471-708-975
cents rather close to a just 16:21:24:28, which should be pleasing in
a variety timbres. At this point, we might ask why flexible-pitch
performers might not approximate a simple JI version:

1/1 9/8 7/6 4/3 3/2 27/16 7/4 2/1
0 204 267 498 702 906 969 1200
9:8 28:27 8:7 9:8 9:8 28:27 8:7
204 63 231 204 204 63 231

Of course, I find a special charm in the version with intervals like
250, 242, and 458 cents -- but this doesn't mean that the piece can't
be performed with a range of intonations, and that in some textures a
septimal tuning based on pure or near-pure rations of 2-3-7 might not
be the ideal choice to get across something like the originally
intended effect.

> This helps getting further ideas and opportunities of areas to
> explore if your music fits nicely for it in some unexpected way.
> and there is no reason that a piece might not enjoy a life
> appearing in varied instrumentation, like a multi faced jewel. it
> is like a plant that can grow in more varied soil. and as you
> mention there is a long standing tradition of it.

Yes, and starting to conclude that the alphabetical notation, for
something like it, might have the right mixture of specificity ("here
are the steps in cents as I perform the piece on synthesizer) and
generality ("here are the notes in alphabetical notation -- while I
tune the small minor third F-G* at 242 cents, it could be F-Ab at 275
cents or Eb-F* at a virtually just 7:6 or 267 cents, or whatever might
best fit a given timbral situationn").

In the late 16th century, it was taken for granted at least in some
circles that a madrigal would have one style of intonation (at or
close to 5-limit JI) for voices, another (meantone) for keyboards, and
another (12-EDO or close) if arranged to be played on a lute.

Of course, a lot of what you've said could apply to a range of pieces;
but I considered your remarks especially relevant to a piece like
this.

Peace and love,

Margo