Bartók and non-12

Hey,

There's an album out by a group called 'Muzsik�s' that reproduces the folk
sources for Bart�k's inspiration:

http://www.musicweb.uk.net/classrev/march99/bartok.htm

At my Tuesday listening session last night, we listened to it, and it was
really great, and there were certainly some microtonal things going on in the
folk music of Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, etc. There is also the evident
influence of Arabic sources.

Having read the Fokker article
(http://www.xs4all.nl/~huygensf/doc/fokkerorg.html) on the use of 31-tet for
things like Bart�k, I think Fokker is right that 31-tet can do justice to a
great variety of folk and folk inspired musics of the world.

an excerpt:

".....Nowadays there is a new demand that the system underlying our music be
improved. Well known is the attempt by Alois H�ba. He was aware that in order
to preproduce native songs of his countrymen in Czechoslovakia he needed a
finer grain, so to speak, and therefore he halved the equal semitones. He
tried to use quarter-tones. However, it is clear that by simply adding 12
more notes between the existing 12 notes one cannot improve the harmonic
relationships and the musical quality of the original 12 notes. What one
needs for improvement is not quarter-tones but fifths of tones - the system
Huygens used.
Again, Bela Bart�k, the Hungarian composer who died in 1945 in the United
States, recognizing the value of the Hungarian peasant music both as a living
tradition and as a source of inspiration for modern music, stated that he
over and over again met the interval of the harmonic seventh and that he
therefore laid at the bottom, as a basic foundation for music, a chord of
four notes, adding the perfect seventh to the common chord. Bart�k's
testimony carries great weight, for he was one of the very greatest modern
composers. Therefore, for the evolution of music, it is very urgent that we
find an equal temperament suitable for the reproduction of Bart�k's
fundamental chord, which may be specified by the harmonic numbers 4:5:6:7.
The "tricesimoprimal" equal temperament discovered by Huygens 3 centuries ago
fulfills the requirement..."

now I'm really interested in perusing Bart�k's output for two violins, (the
44 duos), which nicely blurs the distinction between the classical style of
playing, and the earthier 'fiddle' style.....

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

Aaron,

{you wrote...}
>There's an album out by a group called 'Muzsik�s' that reproduces the folk
>sources for Bart�k's inspiration:

Yeah, Marta Sebestyen is a wonderful singer, no? You might want to check
out Taraf de Haidouks (Band of Bringands) as well, a killer Romanian gypsy
ensemble:

http://tinyurl.com/2zlll

Very fun.

>Having read the Fokker article
>(http://www.xs4all.nl/~huygensf/doc/fokkerorg.html) on the use of 31-tet for
>things like Bart�k, I think Fokker is right that 31-tet can do justice to a
>great variety of folk and folk inspired musics of the world.

I still have a problem seeing equal divisions as a panacea, but that is
just me.

Cheers,
Jon

On Wednesday 02 June 2004 02:14 pm, Jonathan M. Szanto wrote:
> Aaron,
>
> {you wrote...}
>
> >There's an album out by a group called 'Muzsik�s' that reproduces the folk
> >sources for Bart�k's inspiration:
>
> Yeah, Marta Sebestyen is a wonderful singer, no? You might want to check
> out Taraf de Haidouks (Band of Bringands) as well, a killer Romanian gypsy
> ensemble:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2zlll

Thanks for that--I'll check it out.

> Very fun.
>
> >Having read the Fokker article
> >(http://www.xs4all.nl/~huygensf/doc/fokkerorg.html) on the use of 31-tet
> > for things like Bart�k, I think Fokker is right that 31-tet can do
> > justice to a great variety of folk and folk inspired musics of the world.
>
> I still have a problem seeing equal divisions as a panacea, but that is
> just me.

Well, it's a long way from 'doing justice' to 'panacea'...... ;) 31-tet is a
darn good tuning that preserves much of the aesthetic of meantone and the
history of Western music that comes with that thinking, plus having wonderful
new xentonal resources, and a wonderful calm that to my ears is 'close
enough' to 7 limit JI to produce that 'hippie vibe', but has modulatory
resources without the insane multiplicity of pitch required by JI to do the
same. A nice tradoff, if you ask me.

I'm one of those individuals who tends to think the boundary is, and should
be, blurry between n-tets and JI.

Anyway, I don't buy any of the JI metaphysics, even though I love JI, and have
used it, I can't seem to bring myself to be religious about it. It's all in
what you want to do, I guess. I miss the open-ended approach to tuning that
seems to have characterized 'Xenharmonikon' as contrasted with the 'don't
write an article for us unless you stay away from references to non-just
tunings' attitude of 1/1 and the JI Network.

Personally, I think there are plenty of interesting sounding intervals (an
infinite number of them, to be precise) that ought *not* be ruled out of
composition because they have no rational representation, including those
that come from non n-tets (like the interval of phi). Just me, I suppose, but
I guess I like the idea of *not* limiting one's compositional resources based
on an a-priori conviction.

Hell, I don't even rule out 12-tet !!!! (some here clearly do, and I've even
felt bored by it, but I think it would be silly to say I never want to hear
any music that's in 12-tet again!) Jazz, for instance, is made for 12-tet.

Besides, trying to eliminate beating from say, a basic triad like 4:5:6 is not
always right for a given composition. I would argue that it's not right for a
tremendous amount of music: most Western music throughout history, and almost
all non-Western music (with the exception perhaps of Indian sub-continental
music, which not coincidentally, is harmonically static).

As a composer, I find an n-tet convenient: I like to transpose and modulate,
etc. and have the intervallic sound remain consistent. That intervallic
consistency is often desirable to me. How close an approximation I want, and
what n-tet I pick, depends on the *mood* of the piece. JI has a mood, and
even different moods depending on the tuning, but sometimes it's just to
static for me, and an n-tet will have to be done. (Yes, I'm consciously
siding with Darreg here--why not be a tuning omnivore?)

So I advocate *not* closing *any* doors. Why do people always have to pick
fights about n-tet vs. JI? Seems silly to me....Just me though ;)

-Aaron.

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

Aaron,

{you wrote...}
>I miss the open-ended approach to tuning that seems to have characterized >'Xenharmonikon' as contrasted with the 'don't write an article for us >unless you stay away from references to non-just tunings' attitude of 1/1 >and the JI Network.

While many articles would be apropos for the bi-monthly "Wide World of Animals", most people would assume that an article on Maine coon cats would be out of place in "Dog Fancy". Could it be as simple as that?

>Besides, trying to eliminate beating from say, a basic triad like 4:5:6 is >not
>always right for a given composition.

Um, I didn't say it had to be JI - I just happen to not like the idea of x number of equal steps.

>As a composer, I find an n-tet convenient: I like to transpose and modulate,
>etc. and have the intervallic sound remain consistent.

I've never quite figured that out, unless it is self-pleasure: if the intervalic sound remains consistent, what is the point of modulation? In tempering, one could attain differing feels with the differing keys, IIRC.

Frankly, it makes more sense to me to compose with multiple tunings - now *thats* modulation. I quickly add that I don't have the chops to compose like that yet.

>So I advocate *not* closing *any* doors.

I agree as well. But I would also, when speaking about representing certain musics of the world, delve a little deeper into tunings than pick a convenient ET. As always (as often?) I could be wrong, but I'd be willing to bet there are few indigenous musics that actually use an ET; I'm much more willing to think that is Western microtonal/academic culture at work.

>Why do people always have to pick fights about n-tet vs. JI? Seems silly >to me....Just me though ;)

Didn't mean for it to be a fight at all, just my way of showing *my* particular respect for music of other cultures/tunings. And I really don't want to start any conflagration, so I'll just end with those statements, and any ignorances they may contain are purely my own.

Cheers,
Jon

On Thursday 03 June 2004 01:15 am, Jonathan M. Szanto wrote:
> Aaron,
>
> {you wrote...}
>
> >I miss the open-ended approach to tuning that seems to have characterized
> >'Xenharmonikon' as contrasted with the 'don't write an article for us
> >unless you stay away from references to non-just tunings' attitude of 1/1
> >and the JI Network.
>
> While many articles would be apropos for the bi-monthly "Wide World of
> Animals", most people would assume that an article on Maine coon cats would
> be out of place in "Dog Fancy". Could it be as simple as that?

Why yes !! Good point ;)

> >Besides, trying to eliminate beating from say, a basic triad like 4:5:6 is
> >not
> >always right for a given composition.
>
> Um, I didn't say it had to be JI - I just happen to not like the idea of x
> number of equal steps.

Ah! Ok...so you like irrational but unequal tunings? Temperings?

> >As a composer, I find an n-tet convenient: I like to transpose and
> > modulate, etc. and have the intervallic sound remain consistent.
>
> I've never quite figured that out, unless it is self-pleasure: if the
> intervalic sound remains consistent, what is the point of modulation? In
> tempering, one could attain differing feels with the differing keys, IIRC.

Well, there's still what happens to a theme or what have you by being higher
or lower...granted there's not as much contrast as in a tempering, but it
hasn't prevented a tremendous amunt of great music from being written, has
it?

> Frankly, it makes more sense to me to compose with multiple tunings - now
> *thats* modulation. I quickly add that I don't have the chops to compose
> like that yet.

That is cool. I think I'd rather master what I'm doing in one tuning first !

> >So I advocate *not* closing *any* doors.
>
> I agree as well. But I would also, when speaking about representing certain
> musics of the world, delve a little deeper into tunings than pick a
> convenient ET. As always (as often?) I could be wrong, but I'd be willing
> to bet there are few indigenous musics that actually use an ET; I'm much
> more willing to think that is Western microtonal/academic culture at work.

Well, at least you know you have a bias...but I think you may be right. But
not being an indigenous composer, I don't know that I would throw away ET's
just because a folk culture doesn't use it. Might as well throw out my synth
as well....(Kraig Grady might llike that idea ;) )

> >Why do people always have to pick fights about n-tet vs. JI? Seems silly
> >to me....Just me though ;)
>
> Didn't mean for it to be a fight at all, just my way of showing *my*
> particular respect for music of other cultures/tunings. And I really don't
> want to start any conflagration, so I'll just end with those statements,
> and any ignorances they may contain are purely my own.

Doesn't sound like ignorance to me as much as statement of preference...

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

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

> Well, it's a long way from 'doing justice' to 'panacea'...... ;) 31-
tet is a
> darn good tuning that preserves much of the aesthetic of meantone
and the
> history of Western music that comes with that thinking, plus having
wonderful
> new xentonal resources, and a wonderful calm that to my ears
is 'close
> enough' to 7 limit JI to produce that 'hippie vibe', but has
modulatory
> resources without the insane multiplicity of pitch required by JI
to do the
> same. A nice tradoff, if you ask me.

The characteristic meantone calm is how you know it isn't JI, I
think. Those slightly flattened fifths don't sound quite the same as
JI fifths.

> I'm one of those individuals who tends to think the boundary is,
and should
> be, blurry between n-tets and JI.

Obviously its going to blur when you get to an accurate enough et. I
think 171-et, for 7-limit music, sounds JI; probably other people
would set the boundry elsewhere. 99-et is just enough detuned that it
has a sound one might well prefer over JI.

> Anyway, I don't buy any of the JI metaphysics, even though I love
JI, and have
> used it, I can't seem to bring myself to be religious about it.

Where the warfare becomes almost religious is right at the boundry
between just and nearly just; the ennealimmal systems, such as 171,
270, 441 or 612 are more or less JI, but suggesting that a JI
proponent give one of these a try can land you in hot water.

> Personally, I think there are plenty of interesting sounding
intervals (an
> infinite number of them, to be precise) that ought *not* be ruled
out of
> composition because they have no rational representation, including
those
> that come from non n-tets (like the interval of phi).

There are an infinite number of real numbers; to say that means there
are an infinite number of musical intervals requires a leap of
identification.

> So I advocate *not* closing *any* doors. Why do people always have
to pick
> fights about n-tet vs. JI? Seems silly to me....Just me though ;)

A quest for truth in music, maybe.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan M. Szanto"
<JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Frankly, it makes more sense to me to compose with multiple
tunings - now
> *thats* modulation. I quickly add that I don't have the chops to
compose
> like that yet.

You mean like that old piece of mine which transmutes a theme in 46-
equal to a related one in 27-equal, and then back?

Gene,

{you wrote...}
>You mean like that old piece of mine which transmutes a theme in 46-equal >to a related one in 27-equal, and then back?

That would certainly qualify, if the meaning of "transmutes" is the same as "modulate". But (naturally) I didn't mean composing with multiple tunings simply to use multiple tunings - it has to have, without a doubt, a musical and artistic reason to modulate. And right now I don't remember that piece of yours (if it has a name it may be in your folder on my hard drive) to give me a clue if it works that way for me.

No doubt the transmutation is accurate in every other way.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan M. Szanto"
<JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Gene,
>
> {you wrote...}
> >You mean like that old piece of mine which transmutes a theme in
46-equal
> >to a related one in 27-equal, and then back?
>
> That would certainly qualify, if the meaning of "transmutes" is the
same as
> "modulate".

How do you define "modulate"?

But (naturally) I didn't mean composing with multiple tunings
> simply to use multiple tunings - it has to have, without a doubt, a
musical
> and artistic reason to modulate. And right now I don't remember
that piece
> of yours (if it has a name it may be in your folder on my hard
drive) to
> give me a clue if it works that way for me.

It's "Music for your ears"; if you've lost your copy somewhere you
can find it at

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