Metatuning description

Hello, there, everyone, and it's a pleasure to post to metatuning.
First, with due circumspection, might I offer a possible revised
version for one sentence in the Metatuning description:
"Is Paul Erlich the true 21st-century scion of Rameau, and if so,
does this support a xenharmonic law that the total amount of harmonic
entropy is always increasing?"

What that says about me, Paul, or all these lists, I'm not sure, nor
whether "spawn" or "scion" of something else might best fit the tone
of the statement, if this revision were considered.

Anyway, one thing does occur to me about the whole discussion of
72-tET: different people can see quite different things in a tuning.

Maybe there are some often unspoken musical agendas here.

For example, is the harmonic series at the center of the analysis, or
a 20th-century "emancipation of dissonance" carried out at a
microtonal level also, so to speak, or some other viewpoint?

In considering how we might present alternative tunings as part of a
musical education -- "standard" or otherwise -- maybe we should give
more emphasis to what the general framework should be, including
assumptions about the cultural "canon" and historical focus.

If gamelan is considered basic, for example, then categories such as
"nonoctave tunings" can be introduced naturally; and likewise all
kinds of other categories, linked to established world musics as well
as newer experiments.

This might involve questioning a lot more authority than just the
12-tET standard.
Anyway, I warmly agree that often the "narrow extremist" view can be
the "mainstream" one, as discussed by Noam Chomsky and others.
Most appreciatively, with best to all, Margo

--- In metatuning@y..., MSCHULTER@V... wrote:

> Anyway, one thing does occur to me about the whole discussion of
> 72-tET: different people can see quite different things in a tuning.
>
> Maybe there are some often unspoken musical agendas here.

I don't think there is a question about this -- there are many
agendas going on: a return to functional harmony, or an extention of
harmony, a timbre-harmony scheme, a plain search for musical exotica,
or a practical entry into the continuum... That's one reason why
I've tried to bracket "style", or more specifically "my compositional
style" from my posts to the tuning lists, to keep them on the most
general and least personal level.

>
> For example, is the harmonic series at the center of the analysis,
or
> a 20th-century "emancipation of dissonance" carried out at a
> microtonal level also, so to speak, or some other viewpoint?

While the real or "virtual" pitch continuum and its harmonic
combinatorial possibilities are available to any musician, we do have
to deal with the prospect that the harmonic series, or a segment
thereof, appears to be built into the programming or organic
structure that evolution gave us for both music and language. Do we
ignore this? Does the presence of of simple harmonic subsets on an
otherwise complex surface constitute an orientation point or a kind
of psychoacoustic graffiti (like Schoenberg's forbidden octaves)?

>
> In considering how we might present alternative tunings as part of a
> musical education -- "standard" or otherwise -- maybe we should
give
> more emphasis to what the general framework should be, including
> assumptions about the cultural "canon" and historical focus.

Please look at my recent posting to the main list.

>
> If gamelan is considered basic, for example, then categories such as
> "nonoctave tunings" can be introduced naturally; and likewise all
> kinds of other categories, linked to established world musics as
well
> as newer experiments.
>

I think we should proceed with more caution with the assumption that
gamelan instruments are tuned in a "non-octave" tuning. While some
instruments are tuned so that octaves will beat (and tuned in
stretched as well as narrowed octaves) there are plenty of examples
of _pleng_, where the interval has been tuned beatless, a 2:1
interval. It's a matter of the instrument tuner's and the patron's
taste, the qualities of the individual pieces of metal, and also, a
question of maintenance and laziness (bars, for example, are
generally cast too high in pitch, so must be ground down, often a
lazy tuner will just tune down enough to bring it into the
neighborhood of an octave...). In any case, the assumption in the
music itself, which could be thought of as simultaneous variation
upon a single, unplayed, melody in several octaves, is that pitches
separated by octaves, yes the pitch classes, belong to a single
perceptual class.

Daniel Wolf
Budapest

Daniel, there was so much tuning substance in this post that it
really should have been posted to the main tuning list. You're
depriving most of those interested by posting only to this list.

I was responding directly to Margo's post, but if you find anything
useful, feel free to forward it.

D.

--- In metatuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> Daniel, there was so much tuning substance in this post that it
> really should have been posted to the main tuning list. You're
> depriving most of those interested by posting only to this list.