Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic The Ives "Universe" is a finished recording

I took the liberty of yanking this from the Tuning list--where the
never-ending business of what drives scales and the interaction
between tuning and timbre actually really never does end--and posting
it here assuming somebody might be interested, this being MMM and
all...

Completing a version of The Universe Symphony using only Ives' own US
materials and detailing this realization in a book... well that's was
a massive undertaking by any measure. But add to that the fact that
Reinhard's keen wit and long background as a microtonalist allowed
him to completely re-envision Ives in a way that no one else had
dared, or everyone else had missed, and we're talking a visionary
undertaking. Now Johnny's gone and DIY-ed a professional studio
recording through complete with specialized players, what can one
say... WOW! Microtonalists should be proud... Ivesians intrigued...
because what we have here folks is truly bigtime accomplishment, and
I think history will prove this out too. Where were you?

IVES REVISITED:
THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX
...AND THE CIRCLE OF FIFTHS
Dan Stearns

It's a well-known fact that Charles Ives left the Universe Symphony
in the hands of posterity, and NY bassoon virtuoso Johnny Reinhard is
one of a growing number of composers that have collaborated with Ives
posthumously to realize a version of the legendary unfinished
symphony. What's less well known, and in my opinion much more
noteworthy, is that Reinharda longtime microtonalist and founder of
the American Festival of Microtonal Musichas also suggested that
there was an extended Pythagorean intonation latent in Ives' often
curious note spelling.

In 12-tone equal temperament enharmonic spellings like F# and Gb are
always acoustically synonymous. In an extended Pythagorean intonation
the sequence of fifths never closes as it does in 12-tone equal
temperament, and enharmonic equivalencies are always acoustically
distinct. Ives' writing in the Memos and elsewhere offers tantalizing
indications that his unorthodox note spellings were in fact adhering
to the extended Pythagorean model.

The most compelling arguments supporting this interpretation are
Ives' own assertions that B# was as an eighthtone higher than C, and
that enharmonic sharps were higher in pitch than enharmonic flats. In
an extended Pythagorean tuning, B# overshoots the octave by a
Pythagorean comma, and the Pythagorean comma is within a fraction of
a cent of an eighthtone. Likewise, the chain of perfect fifths that
defines Pythagorean tuning generates enharmonic sharps that are
higher in pitch than enharmonic flats.

To go along with the various clues and anecdotal indications that
Reinhard has assembled along these lines, there's also some pretty
solid empirical evidence that indicates there even may have been some
JI (just-intonated) sonorities via schismatic spellings that were
edited out of Ives.

Here's a fascinating bit from an exchange I had with David Porter of
the Ives Society:

Last year I spent several months going over the "new" (22 years old)
critical editions of Tone Roads Nos. 1 & 3 and Halloween. In TR #1
and Halloween, John Kirkpatrick had respelled many of Ives's notes to
make them more "practical" and more "correct" harmonically. The
reason I spent so much time undoing all that foolishness was to make
these Old editions in line with our new Ives Society guidelines. (We
now preserve Ives's spelling, rhythms, and have a consistent format
for describing details of the editing.)

Ives himself states his thinking in an Appendix to his "Memos"flats
represent repose and rest, sharps represent activity. I've seen
several places where a first draft uses flats, but the later and
final drafts use sharps. C# is nearer to D than to C, etc., Db closer
to C than to D. Hence that descending "triad" in "West London" b-ab-
e. The "3rd" ab should be flatter than a "proper" g#.

Ives always railed against convention and the tyrannical effects of
reflexive mental habits, and most of his explanations for the note
spellings are really screeds along these lines. Yet it's Reinhard's
premise that Ives harbored more than ideological and metaphysical
ambitions when he spelled things as he did. In fact, it's Reinhard's
expressed view that Ives' unorthodox note spelling should be seen as
a sort of Trojan horse that hid a specific and far-reaching
organization of acoustical significance. In this sense an extended
Pythagorean tuningwhere an enharmonic # is always sharper than an
enharmonic b, etclines up beautifully with certain anecdotal bits in
the Memos and elsewhere. The only problem is that Ives never came
right out and said "Pythagorean" himself, so the application of this
premise will always invite controversy.

It's possible that Ives is expressing the same idea in different
terms; that "Pythagorean" was not part of his language and the whole
issue is one of semantics. If one assumes that's the case, the
question really becomes one of what now... to what extent and by what
criteria should Ives be reinvented beyond his existing pieces for
quartertones as a microtonalist? To date Reinhard and the AFMM have
organized performances of the Second String Quartet, The Unanswered
Question and the Universe Symphony in extended Pythagorean tuning.

It shouldn't surprise anyone familiar with Ives that his own
rationale for the note spellings offers arguments favorable to both
corporeal and transcendental interpretation. But if the sheer volume
of rhetoric given to each possibility is any indication, then Ives
clearly hits his stride discussing the latter. Yet that's certainly
true of Ives on the whole, and it should in no way obviate the fact
that he did offer concreteif short of explicittuning data regarding
his note spelling that can be acted upon by clever and resourceful
persons such as Johnny Reinhard. If there's anything like a smoking
gun regarding the exact acoustical significance of Ives' note
spelling, then it's my opinion that it might be found in a
typewritten technical plan of the Concord Sonata that Ives mentions
sending to Henry Bellamann in the Memos:

In the strings the chord Ab-Cb-Gb-Bb is a different chord from Ab-B-
Gb-Bb (see typewritten copy sent to Bellamann of technical plan etc.
of Sonata, with tone-vibration tables etc.)the difference in its
overtonal beats (actually measured vibrationally), especially if hit
rather hard, is evident.

The example that Porter points out is something of a horse of a
different color however... In an extended Pythagorean tuning the only
pure or beatless sonorities would be those based on the 2nd and 3rd
harmonics. This is very much like a medieval tuning paradigm, only in
medieval music thirds weren't considered consonances. But for all his
dissonance and experimentation Ives never disavowed triads and
tonality, and even the Fourth Symphony and the Concord Sonata (two of
his most daunting works) feature entire movements of programmatic
tonality. Yet by Reinhard's reckoning, major triads in an extended
Pythagorean performance of Ives would employ thirds even wider than
those of equal temperament; which is already quite sharp as regards
sonorities of the 5th harmonic. Well this brings us back to the
descending B-Ab-E triad. Because in the West London triad that Porter
mentions the third would be a schismatic thirdone where the
difference from a just third is a schisma, a tiny interval of
approximately 2 cents. So in this case it could be said that Ives is
exploiting a pure, JI triad by 'misspelling' the third as a
Pythagorean diminished fourth.

There's nothing in Ives that would indicate any propensity for these
kinds of simple, sonorous JI textures, quite the opposite in fact.
But clearly there were serendipitous, ideological and program-
oriented occasions of simple JI sonorities via schismatic spellings,
and it would be nice to know to exactly what degree these were a
rarity in Ives or something that was systematically edited out in an
attempt to tidy things up. For anyone wanting to realize these
implications in Ives, these recent critical editionsthat preserve
Ives' original spellings, et alwill be a valuable addition to a body
of work that still has some surprisingly fresh tricks up its sleeve.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "daniel_anthony_stearns"
<daniel_anthony_stearns@y...> wrote:
>
> It is with great joy that I can finally say my realization of the
> Charles Ives "Universe Symphony" is finished on CD at maximum
> fidelity, albeit pre-release. We are still trying to work out
> permissions. One listen confirms hopes and dashes concerns. The
book
> that explains it all truly makes the most sense with the release of
> the CD.
>
> For some reason, the score made in Finale is being resisted. From
my
> skewered perspective, the score is the main reference of the book
and
> might best be combined with it. The first 2/3 of the score
> is "finalized" for me to make some copies for presentations today
> with the AFMM intern. The remainder needs time intensive editing
> (but, thankfully, not input). Marc Jones helped a lot.
>
> Anybody here know who can help me with the American Academy of Arts
> and Letters? Who I might approach? Please respond privately if
> appropriate. Thanks you!
>
> all best, Johnny Reinhard
> Director, American Festival of Microtonal Music
> Microfest 2005 - 25th Anniversary - March 26 - April 8 - May 6 - NYC

🔗monz <monz@...>

hi Dan,

thanks for reposting this ... i enjoyed reading it again.

i realize that readers here don't want the kinds of
theoretical technicalities that are common on the tuning list,
but there's a slight error here that should be corrected.
(it doesn't change one bit the gist of what you wrote.)

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "daniel_anthony_stearns"
<daniel_anthony_stearns@y...> wrote:

>
> I took the liberty of yanking this from the Tuning list--where
> the never-ending business of what drives scales and the
> interaction between tuning and timbre actually really never
> does end--and posting it here assuming somebody might be
> interested, this being MMM and all...
>
> <snip>
>
>
> IVES REVISITED:
> THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX
> ...AND THE CIRCLE OF FIFTHS
> Dan Stearns
>
> <snip>
>
> The most compelling arguments supporting this interpretation
> are Ives' own assertions that B# was as an eighthtone higher
> than C, and that enharmonic sharps were higher in pitch
> than enharmonic flats. In an extended Pythagorean tuning,
> B# overshoots the octave by a Pythagorean comma, and the
> Pythagorean comma is within a fraction of a cent of an
> eighthtone.

the pythagorean-comma = ~23.460 cents.

but "eighthtone" can mean either 1/8 of a pythagorean
whole-tone of ratio 9:8, or it can mean 1/8 of a 12edo
whole-tone of ratio 2^(2/12).

(9/8)^(1/8) 1/8-tone = ~25.489 cents

(2^(2/12))^(1/8) 1/8-tone = exactly 25 cents

(is it clear which one was meant by Ives?)

so the pythagorean-comma is ~2.029 cents smaller than the
pythagorean eighthtone, and ~1.54 cents smaller than the
12edo eighthtone.

in neither case is that "a fraction of a cent", but in
either case it's so small as to be a generally inaudible
difference.

... except for Johnny and his crew. ;-)
(which is perhaps exactly why i pointed it out...)

-monz

🔗daniel_anthony_stearns <daniel_anthony_stearns@...>

Thanks joe, I should've got you or Margo to give it a proof as I have
in the past! But really folks... not one response to this on either
the Tuning list or here... I'm flabbergasted,really. This was quite
the undertaking and like him or loathe him, JR gets an awful lot of
shit done year in and year out for some guy in near obscurity.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@t...> wrote:
>
> hi Dan,
>
> thanks for reposting this ... i enjoyed reading it again.
>
> i realize that readers here don't want the kinds of
> theoretical technicalities that are common on the tuning list,
> but there's a slight error here that should be corrected.
> (it doesn't change one bit the gist of what you wrote.)
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "daniel_anthony_stearns"
> <daniel_anthony_stearns@y...> wrote:
>
> >
> > I took the liberty of yanking this from the Tuning list--where
> > the never-ending business of what drives scales and the
> > interaction between tuning and timbre actually really never
> > does end--and posting it here assuming somebody might be
> > interested, this being MMM and all...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >
> > IVES REVISITED:
> > THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX
> > ...AND THE CIRCLE OF FIFTHS
> > Dan Stearns
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > The most compelling arguments supporting this interpretation
> > are Ives' own assertions that B# was as an eighthtone higher
> > than C, and that enharmonic sharps were higher in pitch
> > than enharmonic flats. In an extended Pythagorean tuning,
> > B# overshoots the octave by a Pythagorean comma, and the
> > Pythagorean comma is within a fraction of a cent of an
> > eighthtone.
>
>
> the pythagorean-comma = ~23.460 cents.
>
> but "eighthtone" can mean either 1/8 of a pythagorean
> whole-tone of ratio 9:8, or it can mean 1/8 of a 12edo
> whole-tone of ratio 2^(2/12).
>
> (9/8)^(1/8) 1/8-tone = ~25.489 cents
>
> (2^(2/12))^(1/8) 1/8-tone = exactly 25 cents
>
> (is it clear which one was meant by Ives?)
>
> so the pythagorean-comma is ~2.029 cents smaller than the
> pythagorean eighthtone, and ~1.54 cents smaller than the
> 12edo eighthtone.
>
> in neither case is that "a fraction of a cent", but in
> either case it's so small as to be a generally inaudible
> difference.
>
> ... except for Johnny and his crew. ;-)
> (which is perhaps exactly why i pointed it out...)
>
>
>
> -monz

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗ambassadorbob <petesfriedclams@...>

🔗daniel_anthony_stearns <daniel_anthony_stearns@...>

Hmm, well my feeling--with something like the 20 cd releases or the
Universe--is that he did see the important part through as he's got
all the music done and archived. Getting it out there and available
for those who might want to hear it is in many ways a whole separate
discipline, one where perhaps he could use some help...

For the record I have heard both the live recording of Johnny's
Universe from the premiere and the new studio recording, and the it's
my opinion that the studio recording is better in every way. I also
believe Johnny's realization is on the whole both a better piece and
certainly more Ives-like than the Austin realization. That said, it
is what it is... a posthumous collaboration, and no version of the US
will ever be The Fourth Symphony. But it doesn't need to be either,
and I think once one approaches it for what it is it's much easier to
see it for what it is and not what it isn't... and it is a very
impressive accomplishment by a guy who never puts all his eggs in one
basket.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan M. Szanto"
<JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Dan,
>
> {you wrote...}
> >But really folks... not one response to this on either the Tuning
list or
> >here... I'm flabbergasted,really. This was quite the undertaking
and like
> >him or loathe him, JR gets an awful lot of shit done year in and
year out
> >for some guy in near obscurity.
>
> OK, I don't want *anyone* to take this the wrong way, but since you
> questioned the silence following your post...
>
> I'll judge when I hear it, and when I have it. But there are a
number of
> reasons that people might not have spoken up:
>
> - JR has a track record of announcing stuff and it either doesn't
happen,
> or doesn't seem to happen in your lifetime. The Terpstra kbd
project? The
> 20 volume CD project, which even seemed to indicate that you could
> pre-order them? Vapor.
>
> - I have hear positives about this project, and I have also heard
some
> negatives. Both sides come from sources I trust, so I have both
hopes and
> misgivings, and will simply wait until I hear it before offering
props or
> brickbats.
>
> Those are my reasons for not jumping up and down in a virtual way...
>
> Cheers,
> Jon