The Problem With 17-ET...

Magnus, you wrote:

"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?"

If by "excessively microtonal" you mean music that demands more than 24
discrete pitches for proper realization, I would have to agree --
provisionally. Only electronic instruments can satisfy that particular
demand (though the bowed strings, most woodwinds and fretless
guitars/lutes could do so, given the chance), and I think many composers
would balk at having their works limited to synthesizers or software.

Meantone (of whatever variety) would be an improvement over 12-ET,
surely; even better, an extended meantone of 19 tones (or perhaps,
19-ET?) would be nearly perfect. And something of a meantone tradition
already exists that could easily be built upon.

(Personally, I'd prefer a 19-tone, 5-limit JI subset -- but I'm a crazed
non-conformist. Ignore me.)

"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."

There's no doubt that 17 is a difficult temperament, not to mention an
acquired taste. To me, it sounds bright but brittle, like flawed
crystal. I like the brightness of certain wide major thirds, prefering
them closer to 81/54 and 14/11 -- anything closer to 9/7 is generally
too gritty for my ears, depending on the timbres used -- but I find
17's major thirds a bit gnarly. Well-spaced minor and neutral thirds
work much better, it seems to me.

In my second Etude I employed quartal harmonies, as these seemed much
more palatable than available triadic harmonies. At any rate, it's
definitely a temperament that leans more to the melodic uses than
harmonic, and is quite a challenge to one's patience and artistic skill.

may i point out that Partch used a 43 tone spectrum. He still havefaired better than those who used less. What matters if is themusicspeaks and adds to the whole of music in general. i really don'tthink we can tell where any of it might go.

-----Original Message-----
From: J.Smith [mailto:jsmith9624@...]
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 01:07 AM
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MMM] The Problem With 17-ET...

Magnus, you wrote:

"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?"

If by "excessively microtonal" you mean music that demands more than 24
discrete pitches for proper realization, I would have to agree --
provisionally. Only electronic instruments can satisfy that particular
demand (though the bowed strings, most woodwinds and fretless
guitars/lutes could do so, given the chance), and I think many composers
would balk at having their works limited to synthesizers or software.

Meantone (of whatever variety) would be an improvement over 12-ET,
surely; even better, an extended meantone of 19 tones (or perhaps,
19-ET?) would be nearly perfect. And something of a meantone tradition
already exists that could easily be built upon.

(Personally, I'd prefer a 19-tone, 5-limit JI subset -- but I'm a crazed
non-conformist. Ignore me.)

"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."

There's no doubt that 17 is a difficult temperament, not to mention an
acquired taste. To me, it sounds bright but brittle, like flawed
crystal. I like the brightness of certain wide major thirds, prefering
them closer to 81/54 and 14/11 -- anything closer to 9/7 is generally
too gritty for my ears, depending on the timbres used -- but I find
17's major thirds a bit gnarly. Well-spaced minor and neutral thirds
work much better, it seems to me.

In my second Etude I employed quartal harmonies, as these seemed much
more palatable than available triadic harmonies. At any rate, it's
definitely a temperament that leans more to the melodic uses than
harmonic, and is quite a challenge to one's patience and artistic skill.

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

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, J.Smith wrote:

> Meantone (of whatever variety) would be an improvement over 12-ET,
> surely; even better, an extended meantone of 19 tones (or perhaps,
> 19-ET?) would be nearly perfect. And something of a meantone tradition
> already exists that could easily be built upon.

I agree this is a good idea. I would prefer a 19-tone subset of something between 1/4 and 1/6 comma meantone.

> (Personally, I'd prefer a 19-tone, 5-limit JI subset -- but I'm a crazed
> non-conformist. Ignore me.)

Oh, I'd love to hear about it.

> There's no doubt that 17 is a difficult temperament, not to mention an
> acquired taste. To me, it sounds bright but brittle, like flawed
> crystal. I like the brightness of certain wide major thirds, prefering
> them closer to 81/54 and 14/11 -- anything closer to 9/7 is generally
> too gritty for my ears, depending on the timbres used -- but I find
> 17's major thirds a bit gnarly. Well-spaced minor and neutral thirds
> work much better, it seems to me.

I think the neutral thirds and 7-limit give it a blues-like feel.

> In my second Etude I employed quartal harmonies, as these seemed much
> more palatable than available triadic harmonies. At any rate, it's

Yeah, fifths and fourths can be stacked to good effect. All other intervals sound like suspensions to me.

> definitely a temperament that leans more to the melodic uses than
> harmonic, and is quite a challenge to one's patience and artistic skill.

/ Magnus