On the choice of intonations

Hi,

Something I wanted to get off my chest. I've mulled it for a while, and really don't want this to 'start' anything, but I also don't feel right about keeping it inside of me, because it affects me as an artist (hey, if the word "artist" comes off as stuffy or whatever, just substitute "musician" or something).

A few days ago Paul had occasion to comment on a snippet of my playing in a subset of 22. The talk went like this, with the first statement mine:

>> - didn't think I'd ever play around in this: 22tet.
>
> Not ever? A bit prejudicial, perhaps?
>
>> Not really consonant enough for me
>
> What timbres did you try it with?

So here is what feels junky to me: Why is my statement about not wanting to use 22 "prejudicial"? I've read Paul's paper, and I've listened to most any piece of music I've found posted that was in 22. 100 position papers wouldn't convince me of a tuning as much as one good piece, and I frankly haven't ever really liked anything in 22. And I *don't* mean that each and every piece was a monument to suckage, just that they didn't work on me the way music I like does.

Not to mention that it was one of the first ETs I set up, going on all the 'press' we've gotten about it over the years. A couple progressions and no melodic stuff that felt comfortable to me was all I got. So, as a matter of fact, I don't tend to use it, and am not drawn to it as a listener as well.

Lastly is Paul's suggestion about timbre (I don't mean to speak in the 3rd person as rude gesture, but it seems the best way to address this generally): that isn't how I go about making music. I'm drawn to sounds and palettes that connect with me in some way; maybe similar to instruments I'm familiar with in expressing myself live, maybe sounds that evoke a particular mood, or maybe sounds that just make me want to find a way to use them.

What I don't seem to do is pick a tuning and decide I'll use it no matter what. Maybe that is something that comes from getting an instrument refretted: you damn well better want to make music on it!

It should be obvious that I don't fill a Traditional Composer mold, as they might pick a tuning and right away start scoring out things; I tend to work more by playing material that could develop into something, so I have a feedback-loop workstyle that tends to find it's own way to what it likes.

Well, shit, I'm wandering now. I don't feel badly towards Paul (got that, Paul?!), and I know in his way he must mean well. But I don't plan on chasing timbres to justify a use of a tuning, either. I just want to make some music in a manner - and intonation - that feels comfortable to me.

The funniest thing about all this? The tuning I picked is from the Scala archive, with this header:

! 12-22a.scl
!
12 out of 22-tET, Pythagorean. Paul Erlich, TL 4-4-2000

Ah well, I tried. :) Here's to all of you that DO work well in 22!

Cheers,
Jon

>Something I wanted to get off my chest. I've mulled it for a while,
>and really don't want this to 'start' anything, but I also don't feel
>right about keeping it inside of me, because it affects me as an
>artist (hey, if the word "artist" comes off as stuffy or whatever,
>just substitute "musician" or something).

Don't you think you're blowing this way out of proportion?

About the only thing I took from your long-winded post was that
you've yet to hear anything you liked in 22, and that this means
you don't want to use it in your own music, at least (perhaps)
until you hear a good piece in it by someone else, and that you
don't want to have this reasoning questioned. So why not just
say that, instead of initiating a psychoanalytic heart-to-heart?
Were you on E when you wrote this, or something?

-Carl

Carl,

Thanks, I can always count on you for understanding! :) Two things:

1. This was mentioned to me twice in private, so I'm not the only one thinking about this;

2. A recent post on the main tuning list brought about a similar reaction from someone who didn't want to have to go along with a particular slant in the progress of microtonality.

But, as I said:

> [I] really don't want this to 'start' anything

... so I won't.

Cheers,
Jon

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

> Hi,
>
> Something I wanted to get off my chest. I've mulled it for a while,
and
> really don't want this to 'start' anything, but I also don't feel
right
> about keeping it inside of me, because it affects me as an artist
(hey, if
> the word "artist" comes off as stuffy or whatever, just substitute
> "musician" or something).
>
> A few days ago Paul had occasion to comment on a snippet of my
playing in a
> subset of 22. The talk went like this, with the first statement
mine:
>
> >> - didn't think I'd ever play around in this: 22tet.
> >
> > Not ever? A bit prejudicial, perhaps?
> >
> >> Not really consonant enough for me
> >
> > What timbres did you try it with?
>
> So here is what feels junky to me: Why is my statement about not
wanting to
> use 22 "prejudicial"?

You said you didn't think you'd ever play around with it.

It's not prejudice if you play around with it and decide you don't
like it.

But if at some point you *thought* that you'd never even play around
with it in the first place, my initial reaction if to wonder if that
was a result of prejudice, because there are obviously tunings you
*had* played around with, and maybe other tunings you thought you
would, in the future, play around with.

It's as if I had said "I didn't think I'd ever visit San Diego" --
you might wonder why I would have this thought, whether it was a
result of prejudice, while "I don't think I'll visit San Diego again"
wouldn't be prejudicial, because it would likely be based on a
judgment that occured after or while actually visiting and
experiencing San Diego.

I'm a big fan of challenging people's prejudices, and getting them to
try things for themselves. Especially non-diatonic scales :)

Does that make sense, Jon? Sorry this felt junky, and I hope that
feeling was a result of misunderstanding.

> I've read Paul's paper, and I've listened to most any
> piece of music I've found posted that was in 22. 100 position
papers
> wouldn't convince me of a tuning as much as one good piece, and I
frankly
> haven't ever really liked anything in 22. And I *don't* mean that
each and
> every piece was a monument to suckage, just that they didn't work
on me the
> way music I like does.

But maybe *your* music in 22 would. And that's why it's worth a go at
playing around with it, I think. Perhaps my awful attempts at
microtonal music prejudiced you away from thinking you'd ever even
try it (let alone my awful paper). And that's fine, I wouldn't have a
problem if that were the case. But that's the kind of thing I had in
mind with my "prejudice" question.

> Not to mention that it was one of the first ETs I set up, going on
all the
> 'press' we've gotten about it over the years.

So you did play around in it? See, there are the perils of internet
communication: we have little clue, through manner, inflection, etc.,
how literally to take things. My response to what I thought you were
saying seemed "junky" because you were in fact saying something
different, and the most reasonable fit to what you intended to say

> A couple progressions and no
> melodic stuff that felt comfortable to me was all I got.

Well, there's certainly no diatonic stuff that fits comfortably in
the tuning, so that's not an unusual reaction at all. It took me many
years to find anything that sounded musical to me in it at all. Not
that I'd expect anyone to spend all those years with a tuning they
didn't like. But I thought you said you thought you'd never even try
it.

> So, as a matter of
> fact, I don't tend to use it, and am not drawn to it as a listener
>as well.
>
> Lastly is Paul's suggestion about timbre (I don't mean to speak in
the 3rd
> person as rude gesture, but it seems the best way to address this
> generally): that isn't how I go about making music.

It wasn't a suggestion, Jon -- I simply asked what timbres you had
tried with it.

>I'm drawn to sounds and
> palettes that connect with me in some way; maybe similar to
instruments I'm
> familiar with in expressing myself live, maybe sounds that evoke a
> particular mood, or maybe sounds that just make me want to find a
way to
> use them.

That's perfectly fine.

> What I don't seem to do is pick a tuning and decide I'll use it no
matter
> what. Maybe that is something that comes from getting an instrument
> refretted: you damn well better want to make music on it!

I don't understand. If you have an instrument refretted, you probably
had a good idea of the range of timbres that instrument could produce
before you refretted it. Or is this separate from the timbre issue?

> It should be obvious that I don't fill a Traditional Composer mold,
as they
> might pick a tuning and right away start scoring out things;

They? Traditional Composers? Such as __________ (really, I have no
idea)

> I tend to work
> more by playing material that could develop into something, so I
have a
> feedback-loop workstyle that tends to find it's own way to what it
likes.

Huh. Somehow I thought many Traditional Composers worked exactly this
way.

> Well, shit, I'm wandering now. I don't feel badly towards Paul (got
that,
> Paul?!), and I know in his way he must mean well. But I don't plan
on
> chasing timbres to justify a use of a tuning, either.

Wow -- if you thought I was suggesting that, you certainly read me
wrong.

> The funniest thing about all this? The tuning I picked is from the
Scala
> archive, with this header:
>
> ! 12-22a.scl
> !
> 12 out of 22-tET, Pythagorean. Paul Erlich, TL 4-4-2000
>
> Ah well, I tried. :)

? What's funny about that? Was this for your recent piece? If so, I
think you not only tried, you succeeded. BTW, of the several 12-out-
of-22 tunings/scales that Ara and I have spent time playing around
in, this is the only one that hasn't led to any actual compositions
or proto-compositions . . . at least not yet!

> Here's to all of you that DO work well in 22!

Here's hoping that you eventually get to hear and appreciate some of
the good work of same.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> >Something I wanted to get off my chest. I've mulled it for a while,
> >and really don't want this to 'start' anything, but I also don't
feel
> >right about keeping it inside of me, because it affects me as an
> >artist (hey, if the word "artist" comes off as stuffy or whatever,
> >just substitute "musician" or something).
>
> Don't you think you're blowing this way out of proportion?
>
> About the only thing I took from your long-winded post was that
> you've yet to hear anything you liked in 22, and that this means
> you don't want to use it in your own music, at least (perhaps)
> until you hear a good piece in it by someone else, and that you
> don't want to have this reasoning questioned. So why not just
> say that, instead of initiating a psychoanalytic heart-to-heart?
> Were you on E when you wrote this, or something?
>
> -Carl

I, on the other hand, think Jon and I had an honest misunderstanding,
and feel much better about him having brought up his feelings, and
given me the opportunity to rectify (I hope) the misunderstanding,
than if he had let the feeling fester and the misunderstanding
deepen. It was most human and most sane of him, and it would be a
shame if it took drugs to enable us to pause and reach out, instead
of silently festering in our suspicions, perceived insults, and anger.

Sorry, Jon -- I didn't finish this sentence:

> My response to what I thought you were
> saying seemed "junky" because you were in fact saying something
> different, and the most reasonable fit to what you intended to say

. . . might reasonably seem junky to you. So: I understand your
reaction, and hope you have come to see/feel that it was a
misunderstanding (?)

Jonathan M. Szanto wrote:

>Hi,
>
>Something I wanted to get off my chest.
>

Jon --

A nice posting, a nice piece.

The basic job of a composer is to make choices, asserting her/his own preferences. If anything has been accomplished by the alternative tuning community, it is at least a serious multiplication of choices, which -- like consumer choice -- can create a certain anxiety. I have known more than one musician involved in the intonation world to get so overwhelmed by the landscape of choices, that they adapt a radical indifference. In effect, they say that since every tuning has its own qualities, they can make their music in any tuning. In the end, they're just constantly changing the setting on their synths and noodling around, something akin to, but not quite, composition. In some cases, some musicians give up composing altogether; while I know that improvisation has an attraction of its own, often I suspect it is a kind of retreat, the result of a refusal to make the commitments a composer must make.

I understand the anxiety well, and sometimes have real envy for composers who have not had to face such choices. In the vast space of potential tunings, some set of potentially musical tunings exists with unknown parameters and an unknown magnitude. Within that set is a much smaller subset of tunings with which I -- as a composer -- can begin to make music. (I have found that Erv Wilson has an uncanny talent for selecting out tunings with greater potential musicality). But even within any single tuning, I personally need to spend a lot of time and attention navigating and listening around before I begin to feel comfortable with making composerly commitments. Sure, music theory and my experiences of tunings with analogous qualities can provide some shortcuts, but a commitment of a certain amount of time for exploration is inevitable, and there are bound to be cul de sacs, tunings that just don't work for you. Going straight for the tunings where the attraction is immediate (or avoiding the tunings where the attraction is remote) is a perfectly valid tactic. I recently made the mistake of trying to compose in some tunings (15-tet, 18-tet) with which my attraction and affinity were particularly low; even just playing around with them was a drudge, and the music suffered, the pieces are now withdrawn, fate unknown.

I understand Paul's disappointment with your remark. He has a lot invested in 22-tet and a lot of well-thought-out enthusiasm for the tuning. But as a musician, I hope that his response will eventually be in the form of some new music in 22-tet of his own -- he's dazzled us with his theoretical imagination; a bit of dazzling with some more composition in 22-tet would be welcome. In the meantime, keep making music of your own, however you find it, and thanks for sharing it.

DJW

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

> So here is what feels junky to me: Why is my statement about not
wanting to
> use 22 "prejudicial"? I've read Paul's paper, and I've listened to
most any
> piece of music I've found posted that was in 22. 100 position papers
> wouldn't convince me of a tuning as much as one good piece, and I
frankly
> haven't ever really liked anything in 22. And I *don't* mean that
each and
> every piece was a monument to suckage, just that they didn't work on
me the
> way music I like does.

Geez, I got roasted for suggesting I didn't much like 14-et, and here
you are taking on 22-et. What did you think of my porcupinized Night
on Bald Mountain, BTW?

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Wolf <djwolf1@a...> wrote:

> I recently made the mistake of trying to
> compose in some tunings (15-tet, 18-tet) with which my attraction and
> affinity were particularly low; even just playing around with them
was a
> drudge, and the music suffered, the pieces are now withdrawn, fate
> unknown.

What are examples of tunings where your attraction and affinity are high?

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Wolf <djwolf1@a...>
wrote:

> I understand Paul's disappointment with your remark. He has a lot
> invested in 22-tet and a lot of well-thought-out enthusiasm for
the
> tuning.

With all due respect, Daniel, you seem to have misunderstood my
reactions too. I was not trying to advocate or defend 22-equal at
all. What I had in mind was quite different from this. And it seems
Jon's presumption that I was trying to advocate or defent 22-equal
led to his misunderstanding of my reactions, and some resulting
emotional discomfort too. I hope we can get past this, and that in
the future I can better discuss an issue without being pigeonholed
as Mr. "Love-22" (not to be confused with this presidential
candidate: http://www.love22.com/) . . . :)

> But as a musician, I hope that his response will eventually be
> in the form of some new music in 22-tet of his own -- he's dazzled
us
> with his theoretical imagination;

<blush>

> a bit of dazzling with some more
> composition in 22-tet would be welcome.

Indeed -- the snippets I've made available so far were baby steps
only, and I don't plan on heeding those on this list who think I
should give up music-making and delve into preparing theoretical
expositions. The places that making music has taken me in life, in
relationships with non-musicians, local musicians, and world-class
musicians, and in my inner soul, are far too precious for me to ever
stay away for long. I'm not much of a composer, but it would be a
shame indeed if these two major streams in my life (music making and
microtonal theory) didn't come together in a major way. And they are
coming together, little by little, so unless I meet an untimely
death, I can promise you decades of honest effort in this direction
to come!

In the meantime, Daniel, to restate an earlier, unrelated question:
is there a forum suited for discussing Everett's recent MTO article
on rock?

Paul Erlich wrote:

>
>
> In the meantime, Daniel, to restate an earlier, unrelated question:
> is there a forum suited for discussing Everett's recent MTO article
> on rock?

Maybe the SMT list?

DJW

Gene Ward Smith wrote:

>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Wolf <djwolf1@a...> wrote:
>
> > I recently made the mistake of trying to
> > compose in some tunings (15-tet, 18-tet) with which my attraction and
> > affinity were particularly low; even just playing around with them
> was a
> > drudge, and the music suffered, the pieces are now withdrawn, fate
> > unknown.
>
> What are examples of tunings where your attraction and affinity are high?
>
>

I've composed happily in a large number of just arrangements, 1/5 comma temperament, all the ETs between 7 and 23 except for 15 and 18 (my 10tet piece isn't very convincing, now that I think about it), Central Javanese slendro-pelog and saih-7 selonding. And (even) 12tet.

DJW

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Wolf <djwolf1@a...>
wrote:
> Paul Erlich wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > In the meantime, Daniel, to restate an earlier, unrelated
question:
> > is there a forum suited for discussing Everett's recent MTO
article
> > on rock?
>
> Maybe the SMT list?
>
> DJW

Don't you have to be an "academic" of some sort to join? I thought
that's what Joe Pehrson had said. I'm certainly no academic!

I actually met him in the 80's in venice when he walked up to my car asked me my license plate number .told him . he said what does that add up to, I said 22. he said your right and handed me three 22 dollar bills. It still have one or two. and let me say. the paper is real real good!

Paul Erlich wrote:

>
> >
> (not to be confused with this presidential >candidate: http://www.love22.com/) . . . :)
>
> >
>
>
>
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

Daniel,I'm not sure how you felt about the tuning ,but I really loved
your 14-tet piano piece.Very nice work!

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Wolf <djwolf1@a...>
wrote:
> Gene Ward Smith wrote:
>
> >
> > --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Wolf <djwolf1@a...>
wrote:
> >
> > > I recently made the mistake of trying to
> > > compose in some tunings (15-tet, 18-tet) with which my
attraction and
> > > affinity were particularly low; even just playing around with
them
> > was a
> > > drudge, and the music suffered, the pieces are now withdrawn,
fate
> > > unknown.
> >
> > What are examples of tunings where your attraction and affinity
are high?
> >
> >
>
> I've composed happily in a large number of just arrangements, 1/5
comma
> temperament, all the ETs between 7 and 23 except for 15 and 18 (my
10tet
> piece isn't very convincing, now that I think about it), Central
> Javanese slendro-pelog and saih-7 selonding. And (even) 12tet.
>
> DJW

Paul Erlich wrote:

>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Wolf <djwolf1@a...>
> wrote:
> > Paul Erlich wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > In the meantime, Daniel, to restate an earlier, unrelated
> question:
> > > is there a forum suited for discussing Everett's recent MTO
> article
> > > on rock?
> >
> > Maybe the SMT list?
> >
> > DJW
>
> Don't you have to be an "academic" of some sort to join? I thought
> that's what Joe Pehrson had said. I'm certainly no academic!
>

You have to indicate an advanced level. You surely qualify. Just say that you studied music theory and physics at Yale and have published in Xenharmonikon. If that doesn't work, let me know and perhaps I can intervene.

DJW

I got on (no problem) just by writing a considered note that I was a serious student. Maybe it's a little different in the intervening year or two.

Daniel Wolf <djwolf1@...> wrote:
Paul Erlich wrote:

>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Wolf
> wrote:
> > Paul Erlich wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > In the meantime, Daniel, to restate an earlier, unrelated
> question:
> > > is there a forum suited for discussing Everett's recent MTO
> article
> > > on rock?
> >
> > Maybe the SMT list?
> >
> > DJW
>
> Don't you have to be an "academic" of some sort to join? I thought
> that's what Joe Pehrson had said. I'm certainly no academic!
>

You have to indicate an advanced level. You surely qualify. Just say
that you studied music theory and physics at Yale and have published in
Xenharmonikon. If that doesn't work, let me know and perhaps I can
intervene.

DJW

Yahoo! Groups Links

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

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Pete McRae
<petesfriedclams@s...> wrote:

> I got on (no problem) just by writing a considered note that I was a
serious student. Maybe it's a little different in the intervening
year or two.

I just now sent in a request and there was nothing there which asked
anything.

daniel_anthony_stearns wrote:

>
> Daniel,I'm not sure how you felt about the tuning ,but I really loved
> your 14-tet piano piece.Very nice work!

Thanks. IMO 14tet is swell. It certainly sent me down a path I rarely travel, and methinks that my example is just scraping the top of an iceberg with a teaspoon. I'm not sure whether to keep the ostinato as is (it repeats exactly), or add more virtuosic riffs to it as it repeats. I don't know what would be more idiomatic (said as if I knew what idiom it belonged to). (One great aspect of internet "publication" is that work in progress can really be honestly presented as "in progress" without the kinds of time pressures that old fashioned publication required).

DJW