various

> It's been suggested that a good way to get started in microtonal
> composition is 19-equal, and I think that's true. But possibly 22 is
> even better, or a good next step, because it is not a meantone system.
>

Wouldn't this be harder? Why not start with something completely foreign,
start with a clean slate, and tell the newbie "just play around and find
stuff that you like, and use it"?

Like 7 or 11 or 13 or 14 or 23.

> I've found it's virtually impossible to get most musicians to give up
> meantone or diatonic thinking in connection with consonant major and
> minor triads and the like.
>
> It requires a major re-wiring of the brain and giving up of deeply
> entrenched musical habits.

But if one is forced to deal with something compeltely unfamiliar, then
later, when one comes to say, 19TET, one might not immediately feel that
one HAS to seek out the most familiar territory in the tuning (major and
minor triads). Instead one could let references to the familiar "sneak
into" one's music just a bit, while surrounded by all sorts of other
sounds one discovers. I think that might end up being more musically
interesting; it might pull something out of someone that they didn't
expect could ever come out of them. Later they can re-integrate this
unexpected stuff with their old habits.

> It seems to me we should be willing to accept that tuning systems do
> differ and that this is a practical consideration. The proposition
> that all tuning systems are equally usable is *theory*. My objection
> to it is not theoretical but practical--to my ears, it just ain't so.
> I would rate 15 as borderline, and 12 and 19 across the border; the
> border being my own personal one. 14 just does not do it for me. By
> the time we get to 31, things are sounding downright nice, though
> clearly this is still not JI.
>
> Apparently getting within 6 cents or so sounds pretty good to me,
> which is a theoretical analysis of the fact of my own auditory
> preferences. Getting within 3 cents, as 72 does, begins to sound a lot
> like JI. Systems such as ennealimmal, which get to within a fraction

But you're starting with a very abstract thing, a tuning system, and
assuming that the sound quality of the resulting music will depend on the
"quality" of the tuning system . . which, from your posting, seems to be
how well it approximates JI, and perhaps a few other properties.

Whereas another approach is to say, Given a tuning system, and a set of
instruments, how can I make effective music?

In other words, tuning systems aren't "good" or "bad" for the most part.
. . . . but piece written with them (and involving a host of other
factors) can be.

Good pieces have been written even in the impoverished 6-TET (whole tone
scale). Surely nothing's lamer than that?

> Balckwood Etude in 22TET
>
> I quite like it! I like the "tonal fanfare" in 19 too. My least
> favorite is the French-sounding stuff in 16, 18, and 21 (IIRC).
> But this is probably due to the fact that it's French-sounding
> rather than anything about the tunings.

I was wowed by the Stravinsky-Firebird-ish one in 16 (I believe). (Or
maybe it was 18?) I guess it was kind of cheezy, but a lot of fun.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Christopher Bailey
<chris@m...> wrote:

> Wouldn't this be harder? Why not start with something completely
foreign,
> start with a clean slate, and tell the newbie "just play around
and find
> stuff that you like, and use it"?
>
> Like 7 or 11 or 13 or 14 or 23.

This is great if it works. But I think a few newbies could get turned
off to microtonality altogether when faced with some of these
systems -- they might simply find too little that pleases their ears,
and long to return to the land of 12.

> > I've found it's virtually impossible to get most musicians to
give up
> > meantone or diatonic thinking in connection with consonant major
and
> > minor triads and the like.
> >
> > It requires a major re-wiring of the brain and giving up of
deeply
> > entrenched musical habits.
>
> But if one is forced to deal with something compeltely unfamiliar,
then
> later, when one comes to say, 19TET, one might not immediately
feel that
> one HAS to seek out the most familiar territory in the tuning
(major and
> minor triads).

Or one may approach 19-equal unfamiliar, non-diatonic scales from
which harmonies may be drawn, be they major and minor triads or
otherwise. Like Negri.

> Instead one could let references to the familiar "sneak
> into" one's music just a bit, while surrounded by all sorts of
other
> sounds one discovers. I think that might end up being more
musically
> interesting; it might pull something out of someone that they
didn't
> expect could ever come out of them. Later they can re-integrate
this
> unexpected stuff with their old habits.

Agreed. However, I was thinking more along the lines of "how to get
someone interested in microtonality in the first place, who otherwise
would have had no interest in it." I think the best way might be with
something fairly accessible, and 19 is a perfect example, where one
*could* rely on most of one's familiar habits but also begin to
explore unfamiliar territory to the degree one felt prepared to do.
Then more unconventional tunings might be approached with a more open
mind than they would have been without the intervention of 19.

Hi all,

A few months ago, I set about experimenting with new tuning systems. As my
music gear is limited, I was able to access easily most of the equal
temperaments from 6-24, but not much else. This was plenty interesting
enough, of course! I made recordings in all of those tunings, and I found
something in each of them that I enjoyed. There were no tunings that I
thought could not be composed it or were "bad", or any such thing as that.
I eventually found my favorites, but I kept playing all of them, because
each is unique and beautiful and interesting in its own way, and by learning
how to work in any tuning, we are gaining skills that apply in other areas.
I played in 14tET, and I played in 19tET. My favorites at the moment are
17tET and 11tET. (I couldn't get 22 and 23, and 7 didn't work either, by
the way.)

For me, 19tET was, well, not that exciting. It has all the same harmonies
I've heard all my life, and some other stuff that isn't all that exotic or
interesting. I could write some traditional tonal music. Big whoop. If I
had only 19tET to work with, I wouldn't have been as excited by
microtonality as I am today.

The other tunings allowed me to become free of many learned notions about
pitch that I had and do something that is really new and different. There
are some beautiful possibilities out there! ***We are not tied to 5-limit
harmony!***

For me, this was the perfect way to begin my compositional studies. For
someone else, perhaps 19tET would be perfect. I don't know. It depends on
who they are and what they want to do. I wouldn't recommend 11tET to
everyone, and I know plenty of people who'd be as bored by 19tET as I. I
think the best door into microtonality is different for different people.

-Andrew

--- Paul Erlich <perlich@...> wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Christopher Bailey
> <chris@m...> wrote:
>
> > Wouldn't this be harder? Why not start with something completely
> foreign,
> > start with a clean slate, and tell the newbie "just play around
> and find
> > stuff that you like, and use it"?
> >
> > Like 7 or 11 or 13 or 14 or 23.
>
> This is great if it works. But I think a few newbies could get turned
> off to microtonality altogether when faced with some of these
> systems -- they might simply find too little that pleases their ears,
> and long to return to the land of 12.
>
> > > I've found it's virtually impossible to get most musicians to
> give up
> > > meantone or diatonic thinking in connection with consonant major
> and
> > > minor triads and the like.
> > >
> > > It requires a major re-wiring of the brain and giving up of
> deeply
> > > entrenched musical habits.
> >
> > But if one is forced to deal with something compeltely unfamiliar,
> then
> > later, when one comes to say, 19TET, one might not immediately
> feel that
> > one HAS to seek out the most familiar territory in the tuning
> (major and
> > minor triads).
>
> Or one may approach 19-equal unfamiliar, non-diatonic scales from
> which harmonies may be drawn, be they major and minor triads or
> otherwise. Like Negri.
>
> > Instead one could let references to the familiar "sneak
> > into" one's music just a bit, while surrounded by all sorts of
> other
> > sounds one discovers. I think that might end up being more
> musically
> > interesting; it might pull something out of someone that they
> didn't
> > expect could ever come out of them. Later they can re-integrate
> this
> > unexpected stuff with their old habits.
>
> Agreed. However, I was thinking more along the lines of "how to get
> someone interested in microtonality in the first place, who otherwise
> would have had no interest in it." I think the best way might be with
> something fairly accessible, and 19 is a perfect example, where one
> *could* rely on most of one's familiar habits but also begin to
> explore unfamiliar territory to the degree one felt prepared to do.
> Then more unconventional tunings might be approached with a more open
> mind than they would have been without the intervention of 19.
>
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25�
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash

On Monday 26 April 2004 03:12 pm, Andrew Heathwaite wrote:

> For me, 19tET was, well, not that exciting. It has all the same harmonies
> I've heard all my life, and some other stuff that isn't all that exotic or
> interesting. I could write some traditional tonal music. Big whoop. If I
> had only 19tET to work with, I wouldn't have been as excited by
> microtonality as I am today.

Hmm..I like 19-tet because it is a great 'bridge' from traditional 12-tet to
xentonal sounds. It's 'alien lite' :)

For instance, yes, all the traditional triads are there, but you can modulate
in pretty amazing ways. And every interval is a 'generator', since the number
of pitches is prime. There are 2 sizes of half-step. And two tritones. There
is a great sounding interval that divides the perfect 4th into 2 equal steps,
which has a non-Wstern quality. Not your average run-of-the mill things tied
to traditional Western music, if you ask me !!! (Of course, it is a more
subtle departure than, say 14tet or 17tet.....)

Not to mention there are plenty of ways, ala Messiaen, that you can create
your own synthetic scales in 19-tet, so you *don't* have to be tied to
triads.

I have to say that I agree that 19-tet is a wonderful start for those who
don't want to shed 100% of our traditional roots and start from 'Tabula
Rasa', but who want those traditional type things, but some additional tools
to add a new color and mood...I think it's absolutely fabulous !!

> The other tunings allowed me to become free of many learned notions about
> pitch that I had and do something that is really new and different. There
> are some beautiful possibilities out there! ***We are not tied to 5-limit
> harmony!***

Yes, I agree....

> For me, this was the perfect way to begin my compositional studies. For
> someone else, perhaps 19tET would be perfect. I don't know. It depends on
> who they are and what they want to do. I wouldn't recommend 11tET to
> everyone, and I know plenty of people who'd be as bored by 19tET as I. I
> think the best door into microtonality is different for different people.

Yes, a fact to celebrate, surely ;)

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Christopher Bailey
<chris@m...> wrote:

> Wouldn't this be harder? Why not start with something completely
foreign,
> start with a clean slate, and tell the newbie "just play around
and find
> stuff that you like, and use it"?
>
> Like 7 or 11 or 13 or 14 or 23.

The newbie might get the idea that the range of microtonal music is
limited, in that it was incapable of doing a decent major triad.

> > Apparently getting within 6 cents or so sounds pretty good to me,
> > which is a theoretical analysis of the fact of my own auditory
> > preferences. Getting within 3 cents, as 72 does, begins to sound
a lot
> > like JI. Systems such as ennealimmal, which get to within a
fraction
>
> But you're starting with a very abstract thing, a tuning system,
and
> assuming that the sound quality of the resulting music will depend
on the
> "quality" of the tuning system . . which, from your posting, seems
to be
> how well it approximates JI, and perhaps a few other properties.

I'm simply commenting on what my reaction is to tunings. There's
nothing theoretical about that at all, unless you think listening to
major triads is itself theoretical, or having a gut reaction that
something seems to be giving me a headache is theoretical.

> Whereas another approach is to say, Given a tuning system, and a
set of
> instruments, how can I make effective music?

That's a very worthwhile approach, but of course how I personally
would go about doing that would be to make some calculations, based
on the premise that ratios do matter.

>In other words, tuning systems aren't "good" or "bad" for the most
part.

Theory! It seems to me the hamsters-and-duct tape claim is presented
as an article of faith. Why should I believe it? Of course, given
enough notes to the octave you can do pretty much anything no matter
how they are organized.

> Good pieces have been written even in the impoverished 6-TET (whole
tone
> scale). Surely nothing's lamer than that?

A good point, though I confess I've never been enthusiastic about the
results. 6-et however is a good "non 3" system.

Responding to:

> >In other words, tuning systems aren't "good" or "bad" for the most
> part.

Gene wrote:

> Theory! It seems to me the hamsters-and-duct tape claim is presented
> as an article of faith. Why should I believe it? Of course, given
> enough notes to the octave you can do pretty much anything no matter
> how they are organized.
>

Hamsters and duct tape? Get a grip, please.

One of the nice things about this list is that people don't usually scream
"Theory!" when talking about tuning systems, and I'm starting to get a tad
annoyed at an increasingly strident tone here between the "only my system
is good" people and the "anything goes" people.

Gene, you say:

> I'm simply commenting on what my reaction is to tunings

then you proceed to berate people who are also giving their reactions to
tunings and opinions of tunings, and calling their assessments "Theory!".

I'm of the camp that says "there aren't any bad tunings", and to me, this
isn't mere "theory". I have proven to my own satisfaction that tuning is an
absolutely arbitrary thing by *writing* and *listening* to music in a
large variety of tuning systems. To my satisfaction, one is as usable for
creating some kind of music as another. But, hey, your mileage may vary,
and you may not like everything; and I don't tell you what to like or call
your tuning preferences "Theory!". So don't scream to me that my
impressions are mere "Theory!". Sorry, they're my reality, and I'll enjoy
any tuning I please, thank you.

Now can we get off our soapboxes and just go back to sharing music instead
of poking at each other with "tuning religions".

Sheesh,

Rick

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Rick McGowan <rick@u...> wrote:

> Hamsters and duct tape? Get a grip, please.

It's a quote from Mclaren.

> One of the nice things about this list is that people don't usually
scream
> "Theory!" when talking about tuning systems, and I'm starting to
get a tad
> annoyed at an increasingly strident tone here between the "only my
system
> is good" people and the "anything goes" people.

"Only my system is good" is hardly what I said. Which system is mine,
by the way?

> Gene, you say:
>
> > I'm simply commenting on what my reaction is to tunings
>
> then you proceed to berate people who are also giving their
reactions to
> tunings and opinions of tunings, and calling their
assessments "Theory!".

Your claim that there aren't any bad tunings is ideology.

> I'm of the camp that says "there aren't any bad tunings", and to
me, this
> isn't mere "theory". I have proven to my own satisfaction that
tuning is an
> absolutely arbitrary thing by *writing* and *listening* to music in
a
> large variety of tuning systems.

Fine. Why not present a piece in the 2-limit (octaves only) and see
how it flies? I'd suggest the null scale, with no notes in it, but
Cage already did that, but you could try something assymetrical, by
taking 0 to 11 cents by cents for your scale.

To my satisfaction, one is as usable for
> creating some kind of music as another.

And I'm not allowed my own opinion on that?

Maybe we should get together and do lunch sometime. I can't think of
any random-sounding scales you've ever used in your music, but if you
have we could talk about it.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith"
<gwsmith@s...> wrote:

> Fine. Why not present a piece in the 2-limit (octaves only) and see
> how it flies? I'd suggest the null scale, with no notes in it, but
> Cage already did that, but you could try something assymetrical, by
> taking 0 to 11 cents by cents for your scale.

Incidentally I should make clear I think you could produce an
interesting piece in either tuning. The point is that these are very
limited and limiting choices, and the dogma that all tunings are the
same provides us with no guidance to find the choices which are most
widely useful.

Gene,

> the dogma that all tunings are the same

I didn't say that. Please re-read what I wrote.

> Fine. Why not present a piece in the 2-limit (octaves only) and see
> how it flies? I'd suggest the null scale, with no notes in it, but

John Cage already did that.

In any case, this is starting to become the kind of stupid argument with
stupid overblown rhetoric that made me walk away from the alternative
tuning list.

Rick

--- "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@...> wrote:
> On Monday 26 April 2004 03:12 pm, Andrew Heathwaite wrote:
>
> > For me, 19tET was, well, not that exciting. It has all the same
> harmonies
> > I've heard all my life, and some other stuff that isn't all that exotic
> or
> > interesting. I could write some traditional tonal music. Big whoop.
> If I
> > had only 19tET to work with, I wouldn't have been as excited by
> > microtonality as I am today.
>
> Hmm..I like 19-tet because it is a great 'bridge' from traditional 12-tet
> to
> xentonal sounds. It's 'alien lite' :)

It is indeed. I guess that aspect doesn't appeal to me right now because
"bridging" traditional music with nontraditional is not currently a musical
goal of mine. I'm more interested in truly different sound universes.

> For instance, yes, all the traditional triads are there, but you can
> modulate
> in pretty amazing ways. And every interval is a 'generator', since the
> number
> of pitches is prime. There are 2 sizes of half-step. And two tritones.
> There
> is a great sounding interval that divides the perfect 4th into 2 equal
> steps,
> which has a non-Wstern quality. Not your average run-of-the mill things
> tied
> to traditional Western music, if you ask me !!! (Of course, it is a more
> subtle departure than, say 14tet or 17tet.....)
>
> Not to mention there are plenty of ways, ala Messiaen, that you can create
>
> your own synthetic scales in 19-tet, so you *don't* have to be tied to
> triads.

Yes, this is a list of interesting and very non-12 characteristics. Thank
you for pointing them out. I'll have to play around with it some more. I
think "boring" is too strong a word for me to have used. I found it less
interesting in comparison with many other temperaments, and it did not
naturally suit my musical goals.

> I have to say that I agree that 19-tet is a wonderful start for those who
> don't want to shed 100% of our traditional roots and start from 'Tabula
> Rasa', but who want those traditional type things, but some additional
> tools
> to add a new color and mood...I think it's absolutely fabulous !!

I suppose my interest in shedding the stuffy skin of tradition is not such a
common one.

> I
> > think the best door into microtonality is different for different
> people.
>
> Yes, a fact to celebrate, surely ;)

Indeed! The diversity available in tuning resources is incredibly exciting!
I like that we all have different ideas about it, too, as long as we remain civil.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover

Andrew!

{you wrote...}
>I suppose my interest in shedding the stuffy skin of tradition is not such >a common one.

Oh, please do not think that! There are a lot of people that don't feel the need to gently move away from convention, or mimic convention, or anything similar! You are in good company in your desire to strike out farther from the norm than others, and there are people on this list that feel the same way.

The important thing is that microtonality, in its infinite (by definition, I suppose) array of tunings, allows us all to create as we want, not as is dictated. _That_ is a very special quality.

>Indeed! The diversity available in tuning resources is incredibly >exciting! I like that we all have different ideas about it, too, as long >as we remain civil.

We will remain civil, and barring a 100% finish, we will most certainly make civility a goal around here. I promise.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Heathwaite

/makemicromusic/topicId_6292.html#6327

>
> I suppose my interest in shedding the stuffy skin of tradition is
not such a
> common one.
>

***Oh... it's pretty common... just depends who your talking to...

J. Pehrson

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Heathwaite
<gtrpkt@y...> wrote:

> I suppose my interest in shedding the stuffy skin of tradition is
not such a
> common one.

It's a very worthy and laudable one.

I applaud you loudly for it.

My own case is different. I grew up in a classical piano household,
and then it was mainly the Beatles that inspired me to become a
musician. My social existence consists heavily in my ability to fit
into most of the popular musical styles (rock, blues, folk, jazz,
latin, middle-eastern) of my cultural realm. Though I'm primarily an
instrumentalist, singing in harmony with others is one of the most
pleasurable phenomena I've experienced, and you'd sooner convince me
that 2+2=5 than that JI has nothing to do with it.

So it should be no surprise that I seek microtonal materials that
permit analogous kinds of thinking to what occurs in these musics.

>
> Indeed! The diversity available in tuning resources is incredibly
exciting!
> I like that we all have different ideas about it, too, as long as
we remain civil.

Here, hear!!!