More out-of-tune 12-equal music

Another in my series of this sort of music,which some people also
like to call mictrotonal or xenharmonic. In this case the out-of-
tuneness is created by the use of 99-et, which is marvelous for 7-
limit music. I don't know who on a bad day one would say it sounds
like, but certainly not Beethoven.

Nonaginta et novem

http://66.98.148.43/~xenharmo/gene.html

On Saturday 29 May 2004 05:22 pm, Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> Another in my series of this sort of music,which some people also
> like to call mictrotonal or xenharmonic. In this case the out-of-
> tuneness is created by the use of 99-et, which is marvelous for 7-
> limit music. I don't know who on a bad day one would say it sounds
> like, but certainly not Beethoven.

The language harmonically speaking is neo-French due the the prevalence of
parallellism and 9th type chords. This was an attractive feature of it for
me!!

Overall, I enjoyed it, but I have some compositional notes:

for me, the opening texture is very promising and interesting, but for 8+
minutes, it gets a bit much (for me anyway it did). I would prefer to hear it
stop, have two or three contrasting ideas to mix into the form, etc. There
was a lot of subtle stuff going on, but it was a little to 'caffeinated' and
relentlessly modulatory--like a French Reger on steroids and crack--let your
listeners revel in your well thought out and interesting part writing by
putting in some rests, pauses, contrast ! It had neither the slow evolution
of minimalism nor the logical argument of a high classical structure such as
fugue sonata, or some yet-to-be named neo-Sibelian organic form. Instead the
opening idea was obsessed on for 8+ minutes, with rapid modulations, etc.
Maybe, if you like the surface to be this busy, at least give us a slower
harmonic motion !!! It was hard to digest the microactivity without a break,
or a larger argument with contrast as would occur in a
subject/counter-subject type composition.

For me, the restlessness started to sound like white noise after 2 minutes,
and it lost me. Moment to moment, I realized that what was happening was
delicious, tuning-wise, etc, so I stayed it out to the end, but I wanted to
have a developmental reason to do so as well !!!

All the instruments were pretty much playing all the time, and this added to
the monotony for me: at 5'24" there was a nice break were you kept the reeds
going, but it was broken again within 3 seconds, so I was frustrated at how
brief that *delightful* repose was !!! If you look at the orchestration of
*any* masterwork, there are plenty of contrasting colors and densities.

I think you have it in you to make a tremendous work of this. The ideas are
bold and pregnant, and the sound of the tuning, mixing/panning and the
instruments are promising. Of course, it's still MIDI, with all it's
limitations, etc. But I was keenly aware of being brought to a wildly
interested attention by the opening, a sure sign of a great musical idea.

If you would humor me: try starting it, and sustaining the chord that occurs
at 0'04", followed by a fermata of silence. Then continue, but bring it back
in a developmental way as you have done, but punctuate it with occasional
silences. Introduce a counter-subject that is subtlely related in some way to
the original (inversion, Schenkerian similarity, elision, rhythmic mutation,
the techniques for doing this are many.....) Drop out some players. Plan this
activity to go on in such a way so as to articulate a hand-wringing climax
somewhere close to .618 of the length in ;) (for a clich� example). To me, if
you did that, it would be an orgasmically amazing microtonal masterwork !!

In short, what you do on the surface is delightful, now what is needed is a
large-scale direction/momentum/argument/architecture/thesis-antithesis.
Or, a better way of not obscuring what form I can glean is there (I did
recognize ceertain motives, which were not clearly *articulated* by any other
parameters such as phrasing, silence, orchestration, etc....

Of course, all these notes are just my opinion, so take it or leave it :)
Composition is a very personal thing.....all we can say is what works for
each of us as a listener, and its not always going to be the same from person
to person.

Thanks for sharing it !!! You've proven that 99-equal is very cool ;)

Best,
--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson"
<akjmicro@c...> wrote:

> Overall, I enjoyed it, but I have some compositional notes:
>
> for me, the opening texture is very promising and interesting, but
for 8+
> minutes, it gets a bit much (for me anyway it did). I would prefer
to hear it
> stop, have two or three contrasting ideas to mix into the form,
etc. There
> was a lot of subtle stuff going on, but it was a little
to 'caffeinated' and
> relentlessly modulatory--like a French Reger on steroids and crack--
let your
> listeners revel in your well thought out and interesting part
writing by
> putting in some rests, pauses, contrast !

Thanks, Aaron. I was thinking of it as sort of Renaissance crossed
with classical; the idea being to sort of flow along and obsess in
something like the manner of Renaissance a capella music. Maybe I
went too far with this idea. :)

It had neither the slow evolution
> of minimalism nor the logical argument of a high classical
structure such as
> fugue sonata, or some yet-to-be named neo-Sibelian organic form.

I keep thinking I should try a fugue, but the idea is a little
terrifying.

Instead the
> opening idea was obsessed on for 8+ minutes, with rapid
modulations, etc.
> Maybe, if you like the surface to be this busy, at least give us a
slower
> harmonic motion !!!

Think of all the chords there are when you have 99 notes to an
octave. :)

It was hard to digest the microactivity without a break,
> or a larger argument with contrast as would occur in a
> subject/counter-subject type composition.
>
> For me, the restlessness started to sound like white noise after 2
minutes,
> and it lost me.

Ah well. At least it's different. I find that when music is complex,
it's often good for repeated listening.

Moment to moment, I realized that what was happening was
> delicious, tuning-wise, etc, so I stayed it out to the end, but I
wanted to
> have a developmental reason to do so as well !!!
>
> All the instruments were pretty much playing all the time, and this
added to
> the monotony for me: at 5'24" there was a nice break were you kept
the reeds
> going, but it was broken again within 3 seconds, so I was
frustrated at how
> brief that *delightful* repose was !!! If you look at the
orchestration of
> *any* masterwork, there are plenty of contrasting colors and
densities.

The contrasts in Renaissance polyphony are often very subtle;
compared to Palestrina this was a blow to the head with a blunt
object. Of course Palestrina would probably have run out the door if
he's heard this thing.

> I think you have it in you to make a tremendous work of this. The
ideas are
> bold and pregnant, and the sound of the tuning, mixing/panning and
the
> instruments are promising. Of course, it's still MIDI, with all
it's
> limitations, etc. But I was keenly aware of being brought to a
wildly
> interested attention by the opening, a sure sign of a great musical
idea.
>
> If you would humor me: try starting it, and sustaining the chord
that occurs
> at 0'04", followed by a fermata of silence. Then continue, but
bring it back
> in a developmental way as you have done, but punctuate it with
occasional
> silences. Introduce a counter-subject that is subtlely related in
some way to
> the original (inversion, Schenkerian similarity, elision, rhythmic
mutation,
> the techniques for doing this are many.....) Drop out some players.
Plan this
> activity to go on in such a way so as to articulate a hand-wringing
climax
> somewhere close to .618 of the length in ;) (for a cliché example).
To me, if
> you did that, it would be an orgasmically amazing microtonal
masterwork !!

Thanks again, Aaron. My response to that is that I'd rather try for
something along those lines in a new piece, and let this one stay as
the continuous musical flow I had in mind. Of course, I also had it
in mind to make it a Csound piece, and it didn't stay as that.

> In short, what you do on the surface is delightful, now what is
needed is a
> large-scale direction/momentum/argument/architecture/thesis-
antithesis.
> Or, a better way of not obscuring what form I can glean is there (I
did
> recognize ceertain motives, which were not clearly *articulated* by
any other
> parameters such as phrasing, silence, orchestration, etc....

Oh, you can bet there were motives!

> Thanks for sharing it !!! You've proven that 99-equal is very
cool ;)

Isn't it just? You don't need to go crazy and move around
harmonically unless you want to, either; there are some nice MOS one
could try, for instance.

Aaron,

Bravo on an insightful and gentle examination of Gene's latest work. Not an easy task to speak about another's music in such a detailed and objective (yet personal) manner. Glad you are here to do just that. I'll add just a couple of thoughts for Gene as well, as I dl'd it and gave it two listens (one somewhat in the background).

{you wrote...}
>for me, the opening texture is very promising and interesting, but for 8+
>minutes, it gets a bit much (for me anyway it did). [snip] For me, the >restlessness started to sound like white noise after 2 minutes, and it lost me.

Very much agreed. I decided I wouldn't remark on this feature any more (as I have in the past) after Gene explained his compositional process. But Gene, I hope you take a portion of Aaron's thoughts to heart, because I second the notion that you will find few audience members willing to listen to extended stretches of this manner of composition with nary a break in texture, motion, density, etc. It doesn't come off minimal enough for me to go into "Reich-mode" and settle in for long-term development. One would hope that, if we consider that there are a lot of things going on, you could find a way to isolate some of them and dwell in those areas a little more.

It is a strong signal that when a fine musician like Aaron has difficulty avoiding tuning out in a short span, it may mean something.

I like the sound of this piece, however - there is a more organic nature to all of it, not really mimicing other instruments nor settling firmly in a completely electronic world. The constant 'tutti' nature of the scoring reminds me a lot of Frank Zappa's work with (first) the Synclavier, and later his orchestrations of some of those works. While they aren't microtonal, you might find it illuminating to contrast an electronic rendition of his with a later-orchestrated one ("The Girl in the Magnesium Dress" would be one good example).

>All the instruments were pretty much playing all the time, and this added >to the monotony for me: at 5'24" there was a nice break were you kept the >reeds going, but it was broken again within 3 seconds, so I was frustrated >at how brief that *delightful* repose was !!! If you look at the >orchestration of *any* masterwork, there are plenty of contrasting colors >and densities.

Again, parallel to some of my comments to you in the past, but maybe unavoidable in your current manner of working. Maybe, just maybe, one or more of these works will highlight an area of a composition that pushes you into working in a slightly different compositional framework (i.e. working on individual lines, rather than letting Maple fill in the blanks), and allow you to craft more musical nuances into the already interesting intonational canvas.

>In short, what you do on the surface is delightful, now what is needed is >a large-scale direction/momentum/argument/architecture/thesis-antithesis. >Or, a better way of not obscuring what form I can glean is there (I did >recognize ceertain motives, which were not clearly *articulated* by any >other parameters such as phrasing, silence, orchestration, etc....

As you noted in your reply, there are motives; as Aaron notes, they are not easily discernable, something that can be remedied with further attention to the parameters mentioned above.

As always, illuminating to see how each of us approaches making this music in very different (and valid!) ways...

Cheers,
Jon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan M. Szanto"
<JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> Very much agreed. I decided I wouldn't remark on this feature any
more (as
> I have in the past) after Gene explained his compositional process.
But
> Gene, I hope you take a portion of Aaron's thoughts to heart,
because I
> second the notion that you will find few audience members willing
to listen
> to extended stretches of this manner of composition with nary a
break in
> texture, motion, density, etc.

That's not really a requirement of the compositional process. Did you
have the same reaction to 45000 Fingers, which did a lot of the
things Aaron wanted to see done here?

It doesn't come off minimal enough for me to
> go into "Reich-mode" and settle in for long-term development. One
would
> hope that, if we consider that there are a lot of things going on,
you
> could find a way to isolate some of them and dwell in those areas a
little
> more.

It's not minimal at all, really; it's more like some 20th century
maximalist pieces where a lot of stuff keeps happening so it has
something of the same effect. To me, I can just zone out on this kind
of thing, it massages my brain; but I rather suspected most people
wouldn't much like it. I haven't had any complaints about the
occasional outbursts of treble hysteria, though, which I *was*
expecting.

> Again, parallel to some of my comments to you in the past, but
maybe
> unavoidable in your current manner of working.

Not at all. Compare it with 45000 Fingers or (if I ever fix it)
Bodacious Breed.

Maybe, just maybe, one or
> more of these works will highlight an area of a composition that
pushes you
> into working in a slightly different compositional framework (i.e.
working
> on individual lines, rather than letting Maple fill in the blanks),
and
> allow you to craft more musical nuances into the already
interesting
> intonational canvas.

Maple adjusted the intonation for me; filling in the blanks was my
choice. Maple, in other words, helped me turn the lines into 99-equal
lines, the chords into 99-equal chords, and change totally static
harmony into restless motion.

> As you noted in your reply, there are motives; as Aaron notes, they
are not
> easily discernable, something that can be remedied with further
attention
> to the parameters mentioned above.

I still feel it makes more sense to move on than try to make this
into a completely different piece.

Gene,

{you wrote...}
>I still feel it makes more sense to move on than try to make this into a >completely different piece.

I can write about the other comments at another time, but as to the above: that is something only you can answer, so if you move on then it is perfectly sensible. My only thought is that in these various pieces there must be material that you find interesting enough to utilize in another 'guise'. In any event, all I was suggesting it that there may be some very fertile ground in certain motives, or harmonic motions, etc, that would bloom if they were isolated out of the whole and given more development.

But, then again, maybe not!

I'll try to get around to "Fingers" to compare, though most of the recent pieces have struck me as quite similar in overall 'statistical density', to use one of FZ's phrases.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith"
<gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> Another in my series of this sort of music,which some people also
> like to call mictrotonal or xenharmonic. In this case the out-of-
> tuneness is created by the use of 99-et, which is marvelous for 7-
> limit music. I don't know who on a bad day one would say it sounds
> like, but certainly not Beethoven.
>
> Nonaginta et novem
>
> http://66.98.148.43/~xenharmo/gene.html

Gene, thanks for another amazing piece from you!

I absolutely love this!

But my girlfriend found it irritating. :)

Kalle

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Kalle Aho" <kalleaho@m...>
wrote:

> Gene, thanks for another amazing piece from you!
>
> I absolutely love this!
>
> But my girlfriend found it irritating. :)

Thanks, Aho! Actually, I thought it possible most people would find
it irritating; I wrote it as I sometimes do to please myself. Does
your girlfriend have reactions to other microtonal music you think
you can share?

It strikes me that if we overlook our objection to this or that
piece, or even this or that microtonal composer, and look at the big
picture, we are in a kind of microtonal Renaissance now. Step back
and look at the rate at which new microtonal music is being created
with the perspective of time. Maybe we are all a microtonal Mannheim
school, sending up our rockets and awating a microtonal Mozart. We
may think we don't have much of an audience, but how big an audience
did people have back then?

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

> Thanks, Aho! Actually, I thought it possible most people would find
> it irritating; I wrote it as I sometimes do to please myself. Does
> your girlfriend have reactions to other microtonal music you think
> you can share?

Well, she's usually pretty indifferent but I think that's because the
musical style of microtonal pieces is most often classical/art music
while she is pop-oriented in her listening habits.

> It strikes me that if we overlook our objection to this or that
> piece, or even this or that microtonal composer, and look at the
big
> picture, we are in a kind of microtonal Renaissance now. Step back
> and look at the rate at which new microtonal music is being created
> with the perspective of time. Maybe we are all a microtonal
Mannheim
> school, sending up our rockets and awating a microtonal Mozart. We
> may think we don't have much of an audience, but how big an
audience
> did people have back then?

Musicians are becoming more aware of the possibilities and are
experimenting. But I believe that tuning is not as interesting to the
listening public as stylistic considerations and surface sound of the
music. If some hip hop artist deliberately uses microtonal
inflections in his/her song I believe almost nobody notices anything
unusual. I believe microtonality is not a style but at the same time
I believe that different tunings have different stylistic
implications.

Kalle

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith"
<gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan M. Szanto"
> <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
>
> > Very much agreed. I decided I wouldn't remark on this feature any
> more (as
> > I have in the past) after Gene explained his compositional
process.
> But
> > Gene, I hope you take a portion of Aaron's thoughts to heart,
> because I
> > second the notion that you will find few audience members willing
> to listen
> > to extended stretches of this manner of composition with nary a
> break in
> > texture, motion, density, etc.
>
> That's not really a requirement of the compositional process. Did
you
> have the same reaction to 45000 Fingers, which did a lot of the
> things Aaron wanted to see done here?

There's something wrong with 45000 Fingers, I think. I've posted
about the pitch slides before, and won't repeat myself. But it's hard
for my ears to take in the pitch information in this and other pieces
of yours when the pitches are being slid into from 12-equal, or
whatever.

> > As you noted in your reply, there are motives; as Aaron notes,
they
> are not
> > easily discernable, something that can be remedied with further
> attention
> > to the parameters mentioned above.
>
> I still feel it makes more sense to move on than try to make this
> into a completely different piece.

I'm very excited to hear what's coming next.