Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic Tangent to JLS' Sermonette

I found myself much agreeing with JLS' sentiments in his sermonette. Process music bores me to death. However, I don't want to go deeper into this particular topic.

What I would like do instead is to play devil's advocate in this group and propose that excessively microtonal music will fail the test of time as well, at least with harmonic instruments. Can we really do better than meantone? Meantone has so many advantages:

* Approximates the first 6, 9 or 16 partials very well (depending on how long your chain is)
* Economical (even just 5 or 7 pitches give plenty of musical resources)
* Good support for melody
* Good support for harmony
* Melody and harmony are not in conflict with each other (unlike in many other systems that support both melody and harmny).

Additionally:

* There is a good approximation of 7:4 that is in fact used in practice
(just go and listen to a string quartet and take note of how many 6:7 intervals you hear).
* It has stood the test of time so far.

While I'm at it I may as well be honest about one more thing: I think the 17-tone concert sounded absolutely awful, and the composers were not the problem (they did a great job, and so did the organizers). The tuning just doesn't sound good to me (and I suspect, most people), no matter what you do in it. This should be obvious, but apparently not everyone agrees and/or everyone is afraid to say it.

/ Magnus Jonsson

🔗George D. Secor <gdsecor@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Magnus Jonsson <magnus@...>
wrote:
>
> I found myself much agreeing with JLS' sentiments in his
sermonette.
> Process music bores me to death. However, I don't want to go deeper
into
> this particular topic.
>
> What I would like do instead is to play devil's advocate in this
group and
> propose that excessively microtonal music will fail the test of
time as
> well, at least with harmonic instruments. Can we really do better
than
> meantone? Meantone has so many advantages:
>
> * Approximates the first 6, 9 or 16 partials very well (depending
on how
> long your chain is)
> * Economical (even just 5 or 7 pitches give plenty of musical
resources)
> * Good support for melody
> * Good support for harmony
> * Melody and harmony are not in conflict with each other (unlike in
many
> other systems that support both melody and harmny).
>
> Additionally:
>
> * There is a good approximation of 7:4 that is in fact used in
practice
> (just go and listen to a string quartet and take note of how many
> 6:7 intervals you hear).
> * It has stood the test of time so far.
>
> While I'm at it I may as well be honest about one more thing: I
think the
> 17-tone concert sounded absolutely awful, and the composers were
not the
> problem (they did a great job, and so did the organizers). The
tuning just
> doesn't sound good to me (and I suspect, most people), no matter
what you
> do in it. This should be obvious, but apparently not everyone
agrees
> and/or everyone is afraid to say it.
>
> / Magnus Jonsson

Since you've stuck your neck out here, I might as well do the same.
There are several things about which I'm *not* in agreement with you
(and am not afraid to say so :-).

If the 17-tone pieces didn't sound good to you (as some of them
didn't to me either), then I would say that it's either because the
composer didn't understand 17 well enough to satisfy either one of
us, or we didn't understand what the composer was up to. I posted a
message a while ago about this:
/makemicromusic/topicId_14872.html#14889

Most of the composers treated 17 in a way that I had difficulty
understanding (and in ways very different than I would have done), so
I felt that I ought to be charitable and give them the benefit of the
doubt. (Margo Schulter is clearly an exception; I immediately
understood and liked her composition, since she had discussed her neo-
medieval approach with me several years before.)

I admit that 17 is not an easy division to write for. It took me 15
years to figure it out, another 23 years to write about it, and
another 5 years for that to be published. I think you've seen the
paper, but for those who haven't, here's the link:
http://xenharmony.wikispaces.com/space/showimage/17puzzle.pdf
AFAIK, with the exception of Margo, none of the 17-tone composers had
seen this paper till after I mentioned it in the above posting, so it
was not too surprising that it didn't seem to me that any of them had
used 17 in any of the ways that I wrote about in the paper.

In that paper I made the point that 17 is much better for melody than
any meantone-class temperament. (Consonant harmony, of course, is a
challenge, but it's possible.) I also made the point that 17 is more
economical than most other circulating non-12 tunings, and certainly
more economical than any with a decent fifth.

Since you said that 17 doesn't sound good, no matter what you do to
it, let me offer several examples to the contrary.

After reading my paper, Hudson Lacerda did a very nice improvisation
that drew a response from you that indicated a possible change in
your opinion of 17:
/makemicromusic/topicId_14872.html#14993
Unfortunately, the sound file is no longer available, so I hope you
remember what you heard. (I do have the file, impro.ogg, and I could
send it to you off-list, if you like.)

Margo has many neo-medieval compositions (in 17) that show how well
suited that division is for that style of writing. (I have so many
of her files in my library that I hesitate to give any links, because
I don't know which might be current. Margo, perhaps you could
provide a few of your favorites?)

Another piece that may have been influenced (indirectly) by some of
the principles in that paper are Aaron K. Johnson's "Adagio for
Margo", still available at:
http://www.akjmusic.com/works.html
which I both liked and understood at my first hearing; see:
/makemicromusic/topicId_15226.html#15247

Finally, a fragment of a composition that I started (and hope to
finish someday soon):
http://xenharmony.wikispaces.com/space/showimage/17WTjazz.mp3
You may not like the parallel 5ths and block chords (even though
they're perfectly acceptable in a jazz idiom), but can you honestly
say that you don't like the tuning, or that it's not appropriate for
this style?

--George

🔗kraiggrady@...

I worry more about microtonality being reduced to nothing more than a 'new serialism'.
I don't think talking about things in practical terms since we are not dealingwith a science.
personallty i dismiss meantone for the most part because it is not the right energy for me.
-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus Jonsson [mailto:magnus@...]
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 12:10 PM
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MMM] Tangent to JLS' Sermonette

I found myself much agreeing with JLS' sentiments in his sermonette.
Process music bores me to death. However, I don't want to go deeper into
this particular topic.

What I would like do instead is to play devil's advocate in this group and
propose that excessively microtonal music will fail the test of time as
well, at least with harmonic instruments. Can we really do better than
meantone? Meantone has so many advantages:

* Approximates the first 6, 9 or 16 partials very well (depending on how
long your chain is)
* Economical (even just 5 or 7 pitches give plenty of musical resources)
* Good support for melody
* Good support for harmony
* Melody and harmony are not in conflict with each other (unlike in many
other systems that support both melody and harmny).

Additionally:

* There is a good approximation of 7:4 that is in fact used in practice
(just go and listen to a string quartet and take note of how many
6:7 intervals you hear).
* It has stood the test of time so far.

While I'm at it I may as well be honest about one more thing: I think the
17-tone concert sounded absolutely awful, and the composers were not the
problem (they did a great job, and so did the organizers). The tuning just
doesn't sound good to me (and I suspect, most people), no matter what you
do in it. This should be obvious, but apparently not everyone agrees
and/or everyone is afraid to say it.

/ Magnus Jonsson

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗hstraub64 <hstraub64@...>

🔗Magnus Jonsson <magnus@...>

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, George D. Secor wrote:

> Since you've stuck your neck out here, I might as well do the same.
> There are several things about which I'm *not* in agreement with you
> (and am not afraid to say so :-).

Thanks for answering :)

> /makemicromusic/topicId_14872.html#14889

Read it.

> doubt. (Margo Schulter is clearly an exception; I immediately
> understood and liked her composition, since she had discussed her neo-
> medieval approach with me several years before.)

I remember I liked Margo's piece the best so I think we still mostly agree when we compare pieces within 17.

> I admit that 17 is not an easy division to write for. It took me 15
> years to figure it out, another 23 years to write about it, and
> another 5 years for that to be published. I think you've seen the
> paper, but for those who haven't, here's the link:
> http://xenharmony.wikispaces.com/space/showimage/17puzzle.pdf

Thanks, that was an interesting read. Halfway through reading it I started improvising in 12 out of 17. Maybe you will find it interesting:

http://hcoop.net/~magnus/music/files/Magnus_Jonsson_-_17.mp3

My feeling for the supermajor third is a little different than yours. I find that leading tones lead downwards. For example, B does not lead melodically to C, it leads to G for me (and perhaps after that to C).

I have to admit 17 is more fun than 12 to improvise in.

> Since you said that 17 doesn't sound good, no matter what you do to
> it, let me offer several examples to the contrary.

I am somewhat convinced now that it doesn't have to sound bad, especially after my unusually successful venture into 17 above.

> After reading my paper, Hudson Lacerda did a very nice improvisation
> that drew a response from you that indicated a possible change in
> your opinion of 17:
> /makemicromusic/topicId_14872.html#14993
> Unfortunately, the sound file is no longer available, so I hope you
> remember what you heard. (I do have the file, impro.ogg, and I could
> send it to you off-list, if you like.)

Perhaps I'm very ambivalent about 17. :)

> Margo has many neo-medieval compositions (in 17) that show how well
> suited that division is for that style of writing. (I have so many
> of her files in my library that I hesitate to give any links, because
> I don't know which might be current. Margo, perhaps you could
> provide a few of your favorites?)

That would be interesting.

> Another piece that may have been influenced (indirectly) by some of
> the principles in that paper are Aaron K. Johnson's "Adagio for
> Margo", still available at:
> http://www.akjmusic.com/works.html
> which I both liked and understood at my first hearing; see:
> /makemicromusic/topicId_15226.html#15247

I like and understand some of what I am hearing, but at other times it sounds almost random to me.

> Finally, a fragment of a composition that I started (and hope to
> finish someday soon):
> http://xenharmony.wikispaces.com/space/showimage/17WTjazz.mp3
> You may not like the parallel 5ths and block chords (even though

Indeed. I find the parallel moving chords hard to digest, especially being sour 6:7:8-chords.

> they're perfectly acceptable in a jazz idiom), but can you honestly

Incidentally, I don't like jazz very much (although I like very early jazz).

> say that you don't like the tuning, or that it's not appropriate for
> this style?

The tuning can sound good I guess, but I think I like 12-tet jazz better.

/ Magnus

Tangent to JLS' Sermonette

🔗Magnus Jonsson <magnus@...>

🔗George D. Secor <gdsecor@...>

🔗kraiggrady@...

🔗hstraub64 <hstraub64@...>

🔗Magnus Jonsson <magnus@...>

🔗Jacob <tricesimoprimalist@...>